Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-11-05

ven others from offending in like manner.
administers a punishment he is justified.
Was it or was it not reasonable in this OIL
Ger to decide that such speech tended TO
characterization? 1t was taking part,
openly expressing sympathy with one OF
the parties to the controversy. Was it
reasonable of the officer to determine that
that was INSTRUMENTATION? He then, the
man having admitted this, having gwen ms
reason-according to his own testimony
having made no offer to retract. but SEEM
ingly, in the presence OF the troops, having
been willing to let it go at that and let his
speech stand. ordered him 1nder GaIa, arrest: Te
kins, who told him that he understood his
duty as a soldier, and the matter was re-
ferred to him. Thereupon the man was
hanged up by the thumbs, Colonel Streator
having waited several hours for the return
OF his Captain.
Discussing the Question of Malice.
Of course, gentlemen, it is not contended,
or for one moment sought to be established
by either side, that the punishment was in
fiicted Just at the moment the words were
spoken. The man was in custody; the
Colonel consulted first with his superior
officer and, it having been referred back TO
him, determined to await the return OF his
captain. Did this indicate malice9 Did it
indicate ill will toward this mani
You have q right further to consider,
this point the former conduct of this prose
cutor. He had slept upon his post, or he had
left his post and gone to sleep-one OF the
two. His officers had decided that that was
q proper matter for punishment, as they hau
a right 20 do. They had punished him by
making him carry q log; he had promised to
be q good soldier, and he mad been ordered
TO his quarters. The next day he says this
thing in the presence OF his comrades. which
his officers decided ut the time was I'M
proper. They had right then to consider,
IN view of his past conduct and the PUNISH
ment that had been inflicted upon him,
whether or not any milder punishment
would reduce him to obedience.
The Intention of the officers.
Having considered all these things, If you
had been in the officers place you might
have ordered some other punishment, but
II, after considering all these facts, the OIL
GER did order this punishment OF hanging up
by the thumbs and ordered the surgeons to
be present to see that no injury was In
tlicted upon the man unnecessarily, ana the
punishment was so carried out, then you are
not to determine whether or not you would
have ordered another punishment, or
whether or not some milder punlsnment
would have answered, but you are to pass
upon the question OF whether you are salts
fed beyond a reasonable doubt that these
officers were not actuated by an upright IN
tenJion to preserve the discipline of their
command and promote the interests of the
service in which they were engaged.
y
matter that you have to pass upon; but
even if you should find Colonel Streator
guilty, as to Colonel Hawkins there Is an
other and further question. He was present
upon the ground; he did not order the pun
tsnment. The evidence is, as to the coiE-
munication between himself and Colonel
Streator, that he simply told Colonel Streator
that he was soldier and knew his duty,
and the matter was referred to him One OF
the surgeons says that he spoke TO him
about attending and seeing to the admins
tration of the punishment. He was the COM
manding o1iicer; but you must be satisfied
beyond q reasonable doubt, even II you De-
lieve Colonel Streator guilty, that Colonel
Hawkins in some way directed, aided or en-
couraged the infiicuion of the punishment;
and If you have any reasonable doubt upon
that point, it is your duty 10 find verdict
OF not guilty to him, even II you nnd
Colonel Streator guilty
Considering the Grade of Offcnse.
In case you find Colonel Streator guilty,
you will then, and not until then, proceed to
consider the further question, what was the
nature and extent OF the injury inflictedf
Was it in fact a grievous bodily harm? This
means a harm grievous to be borne-in other
words an assault and battery in which some-
thing more Than the ordinary I'M ury is in
6icted: anu where the facts are such that the
Jury are satisfied that unlawful violence has
been inflicted but are not satisfied that the
injury inflicted was grievous to be borne.
then they may, in such a case, find q verdict
guilty oil assault anu Datteff.
II you find verdict OF not guilty as to
the defendants generally, then it will be
your duty to dispose OF the costs upon this
Indictment; and unless you are satisfied,
gentlemen. that these men who were acting
as public officers were in some way Dlam-
aDle, then you ought not to impose costs;
in other words the jury may f1nd defend
ant not guilty, but may be satisfied that
while not guilty OF the offense, he was
guilty of Intentional improper conduct
touching that subject matter. In such an
event, it is sometimes proper for jury to
impose costs upon defendant, although
they may acquiG him. But where a defend
ant is q public officer, and is simply dis
charging a duty that lie honestly believed
he owed to his command and TO the service
in which he was engaged it is improper to
impose costs upon him, simply because the
jury have power to do so under the act OF
Assembly.
Gentlemen, you will give to this case your
grave consideration. II Colonel Streator
was the officer issuing the command for this
punishment, which is charged as an aggra-
waited assault and battery, Mt the time lie is-
sued his order and amid the surroundings
was actuated only by IN upright motive to
promote the public service and restore or
der and maintain the discipline of his COM
mand, then it is very important that he
should not be found guilty. Gentlemen, the
aaS Ia il w