The Portland daily press., 1892-07-30

ing, were found to be turned Off.
handkerchief was found in the store, but
may have been one left by a customer.
LAW COURT.
The following cases were disposed of yester-
day:
Kasor County,
Samuel Pillsbury, complainant, VS.. City of
Rocllland. Agreed statement. Argued orally
Robert b. Metcalf in eq. vs.. Joseph /. Met
calf ct ais. Appeal by defendants. Submitted
on briefs.
City Of Rockland. in eq. VS.. The Rockland
Water Company. Report, Argued ! orally
A Aegss l. Bainys Eiilabeth NJ. S Walsh, ex
ecutrIx. Exceptions by plaintiff. Argued oral
ly.
Stephen E. Young VS.. Benjamin L. Young.
MONT Montgomery sSnssrleA'' = s Fogier Libby.
State vs.. &. A. Lynde, applf. Exceptions.
KalIock Meservey.
State Is William W rgea anil and Fred Burns
W. r. Prescott. Co. Atty.
State VS.. Jane Osgood. Exceptions. Argued
r. Prescott, Co. Atty; +,,na ), 1onn.on
State VS.. Edward Lothrop, applt Exceptions
Argued orally.
W. R. Prescott Co, Atty.
lMortland & johnson.
State VS.. Michael Rowley. applt Exceptions.
w. r. Prescott, Co. Atty Staples.
State VS.. George II. Robinson. Exceptions.
Argued orally.
W. R. Prescott, Co. Atty. Fogler & Libby.
State VS.. Michael Rawley. Exceptions. Ex-
ceptions overruled for want OF prosecution.
VI William f. E %ekon st. NJ feWReTs ct
al. Report. Exceptions by pltff. Argued in
writing.
Ayers, Delas Cases, Sawyer: !, . 49,,
George B. Sawyer, assignee, VS.. j. Merrill
Lord Exceptions and report by plaintiff. Ar
| gued in writing.
Readfield Hopkins VS.. Mary A. Hopkins Ex-
ceptions by defendant. Exceptions oyerruled
| for want OF prosecution.
Stella G. Hopkins vs. Mary A. Hopkins. Ex-
ceptions by pltff. Exceptions overruled for
want of prosecution.
| Fire Insurance Company. Exceptions by plain
| tiff. Argued orally.
| Sawyer. Fogler.
| Charles G. Cove, in eq. VS.. City of Biddeford
| ct ais. Report Submitted on briefs.
| Hamilton & Haley.
Charles T. Read, City Solicitor Edwin Stone.
| Margaret j. Fitzpatrick VS.. City of Biddeford.
| Exceptions by defendant. Submitted on briefs.
| Hamilton & Haley
Charles 7. Read, City Solicitor, Edwin Stone
The Case of Private Iams.
To the Editor Of the Press:
The punishment melted out to Private
Iams of the Pennsylvania militia by
Lieutenant Colonel Streator has provok-
ed good deal of newspaper comment,
none of which has touched the main point
not even that of Gen. Butler. The point
is what power, if any, properly consti-
tuted authority has over the militia in
| Pennsylvania or any other state We
have a mighty army of militia in all our
states, generally composed of excellent
individuals. These uniformed men, car
rying weapons of death and destruction,
many of them fairly well drilled, massed
| annu ally for a longer or shorter time in
| camps of instruction, and drawing large
| ly on the treasures of their respective
states are not kept up either for personal
amusement, the plaudits of admiring
maidens or for a species of social club
| They are meant, at the call of the COVER
nor, who is also commander-in-chief, for
| use in cases of emergency. 1t is their
duty to risk life and take life, if necessa-
ry, at the word of command.
| To that end, code of rules, regula-
| tons and articles of war are necessary,
| just as much as for national troops.
| Thanks to the commingling of profess
sional with amateur soldiers since the
war, brought about by the influence of
| the war department, much has been
| gained in a right way of military think
| ing. Instance the remarks of Private
---, of the Pennsylvania militia,
viz: ''My sympathies are with the work
men, but l will obey orders and fire on
| these rioters if ordered, for such is. the
obligation of my oath and my duty" or
words to that effect. Until each state
can by law and oath of enlistment put
| it's militia under power which can exact
a death penalty if need be, at a time of
| armed, active service, so long will our
militia utterly lack the backbone of eff
cheney and fail in great and vital tests.
| And this, irrespective of the quality of
material and excellent condition in every
| other respect
1t goes without saying that no COM
mandipg officer in the United States ar
| my has, either by custom, precedent,
law or regulation, the power to order OF
inflict such punishment as the newspa-
pers allege was given Private Iams. 1t
also goes without saying that this officer
had to deal with man who was disturb
ing the peace of the camp by utterances
| which might, in few moments, raise
\ mutinv, and all officers of all armies
have the right to do much more than
| Colonel Streafor did ON their individual
| Judgment in a case of mutiny.
Let each state then adopt for its mill
tia when called out the army code of
laws for the time being, and let the pos
sibility of proper punishment supercede
the necessity of officers exercising snap
/ Judgment in like cases. ID. q. 1.