Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1892-11-04
IAMS' CASE CLOSED.
All the Testimony in and the
Lawyers Talking.
low THE PRIVATE WAS STRUNG UP

Witnesses Swear That He Rested His
Feet and Swallowed Tobacco Make
Him Sick-Military Officers Consider the
Punishment n1iId-Articles of War Not
I'm Force During Emergencies THE
Plaintiff Takes the Stand Again and
Puts in Some Denials.
any value the witnesses in the Iams case
yesterday did not leave much of his com
plant standing, so far as the charge of
cruelty is concerned. The first witness was
Charles Hatfield, hospital nurse for the
Tenth regiment. He saw Iams strung up
The heel of his right foot was on the ground
Then Iams would change and rest on the
balls of his feet. His arms did not appear
to be very straight and the cord was not
taut Iams asked for chew of tobacco,
which he swallowed Witness said: ''Iams,
you should not have taken that tobacco"
and Iams said: II did it for purpose" He
said this while he was still strung up.
About five minutes later Iams was cut
down. He then said: "D-n the doctors;
we will fool them" He then took drink of
beer from canteen.
Further Similar Testira ony.
Witness said further: Monday after he
was tied up | saw him in Homestead and
asked him how he felt lie said he was all
right. / asked him how his thumbs We're,
and he said: They are all right" Hat
field said Iams told him that he would
have been all right If he had not s'val-
Hwed the tobacco. Edward Dougherty,
Of the the Tenth regiment. testified that
he saw IaIrs after he was drumIned ont of
camp. and Iams had said that he was all
right but he would get even with Streator.
William Berry Hill --- ~1rmber Of tho
guard, saw Iams wniie ne was STRUNG Up.
IamS stood on the .;,.4is -. ais feet, and
part of the time had one heel on the
ground. After he was cut down Ians told
him he felt all right, ana that his thumbs
were all right.
Considered the Punishment Mild
General &. l.. Fitzhugh was sworn and
reviewed his war experiences. He would
| call the conduct of Private Iams insubor-
dination or mutinN and the punishment in
| fiicted on him mild for the offense." I'm
der such conditions it was usual for an
| officer to act on his own Judgment without
regard to the regulations or articles of war.
| The latter did not refer to emergencies.
| In emergencies the officer was the sole,
| the absolute judge of the punishment.
| He believed that if the officer wanted tC
make an example, if in the face of the
| enemy and his command was in danger, he
| could iufiict any punishment he might
| think fit without court-martial.
How Gen. Wiley Views the Case.
General Wiley (recalled) would designate
| the offense "mutinous insolence." The pun
| ishment was not unreasonable. On cross
| examination witness said an officer has au-
| thority to infiict summary punishment,
| "There are cases" he said, when mutiny is
| imminent an officer might be justified in
| cutting man down with his saber."
| Colonel Norman NJ. Smith. when sworn
| said he would consider the offense charged
| to Iams-under the conditions existing
| mutiny, emphatically mutiny. The pun
| ishment meted out he considered mild. He
| believed the officer had the right to inflict
| Summary punishment. Witness said wher
| the army is in the face of the enemy tn,
| rules and regulations of the army and the
| articles of war are thrown aside. Major !
| F. Denniston and others gave similar testi
mony, and the defense rested