Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-08-11
A P L E A N B A r
An Important Decision by the Secretary
of the Navy.
The Case Of Carpenter Sheppard Care
of the Court Martial Approved.


fully Reviewed and the Findings
of the Court Martial Approved.
Secretary Herbert has made a decision in
the court-martial case Of Carpenter Frank
8. Sheppard that will be read with interest
by all officers Of the navy, regardless OF
rank. because of the importance Of the
principles involved. The entire story Ia told
In the decision, which is as follows:
From an examination Of the record of
the general court-martial in the case CT
Carpenter Frank 8. Sheppard, U. s. NJ, ii
appears that the accused being called upon
to plead to the charge preferred against
him. to wit, drunkenness on duty plead
in the bar Of trial that he had already been
punished for the alleged offense. in that he
was, by order of his commanding officer.
| restricted to the ship to which he was at
tached. the U. S. 8. Philadelphia. from the
Path to the 9th day Of May. 1893, on which
latter day he was placed in arrest by order
Of the Navy Department and furnished with
charge and specification preferred against
him for trial by general court-marrial.
What the Evidence Showed.
From the evidence adduced. and from the
statement Of Carpenter Sheppard. before
the court In relation to his plea in bar of
trial. above mentioned. 1t appears that on
the morning Of the 18th Of May last. being
then at quarters. Mr.. Sheppard was sent to
his room by the executive officer Of the
Philadelphia. for being under the influence
OF liquor: that he was very soon after
placed on the sick list and that he re-
mained on the sick list until the Goth day
Of May, when he was discharged therefrom.
ordered to duty. and told to take account
of stores.
1t further appears that Mr. Sheppard was
again placed on the sick list on May 81. and
that he was discharged therefrom on May
"a and informed that he was TO continue
his duties OH board, but was advised not
to ask. or informed that he must not ask
permission to go ashore. This Information
Of the Philadelphia. under direction Of the
commanding officer Of that vessel. and in
response to an inquiry made by Sheppard
IN regard to his status.
Not an Analogous Case.
In support OF his plea in bar Of trial Mr.
Sheppard cites the case of Capt Edward
P. Meeker. U. 8. NJ. c., vide Navy Depart
ment general court-martial, order No. 8,
dated January 81, 1893. In this case the ac-
cused plead in bar of trial that he had
already been punished for the offenss for
which he was on trial. in that he had been
publicly reprimanded therefor by the COM
mander-in-chief of the squadron In which
said plea in bar. but was ordered by the
commander-in-chief the convening author
ity. to proceed with the trial OF Capt.
voking its finding In support of the plea In
bar. and the court proceeded to finding
upon the merits Of the case and to sentence
Of Capt. Meeker thus placing upon the
record. as stated in the general court
martial order. above referred 10, two judg-
ments. one for the accused and the other
against him; and 1t was for the reason, as
held by the Secretary of the Navy. that
the conyening authority has no power to
drect court to disregard the Judgment
q different one" that the sentence in Capt
Meeker's case was set aside. 1t Is more
over distinctly stated in the comments Of
referred to that It was not deemed neces-
sary to decide. and therefore was not de-
cided. that Capt. Meeker's plea Of previ-
Gus punishment in bar of trial was valid.
The case Of Capt. Meeker Is not. there
fore, deAmed to be analogous TO that under
consideration. and the action of the de-
which Is applicable In the case of Car
penter Sheppard.
Not Restricted a. q Punishment.
Recurring now to the case Of CARPENTER
Sheppard. 1t Is proper to remark that that
omcer did not ask permission to 20 on
shore during the period from the oath to the
2Ith OF May, inclusive, and, consequently.
that he was never explicitly refused such
permission; and that, therefore, though
virtually restricted to the ship, he was not
actually restricted as a punishment.
nor ,0rn was as any entry Of such restriction made
2oth article Of the articles for the govern
ment OF the navy with regard to all pun
isnmsnts h,s asa inficted by the commander or by
MS order, except reprimand
Article "a Of the articles for the govern
ment OF the navy provides as follows:
mn NO . commander commander, OF a vessel shall infiict
other punishment than private reprimand,
suspension from duty. arrest or confine-
fnement shall not continue longer than ten
days. unless a further period Is necessary
to bring the offender to trial by q court
martial"
Acted Within His Authority,
1t Is submitted that In his action in the
case of Carpenter Sheppard the command
Ing officer of the Philadelphia acted in ac-
cordance with the provisions Of the above
article. and within the proper scope Of his
authority, even If 1t be admitted that the
practical effect of such action was to re-
strict Mr.. Sheppard to the ship pending the
decision of the Navy Department upon a
report Of his misconduct. which report had
been forwarded. with recommendation that
he be tried by general court-martial.
Article 1856 Of the United States Navy
Regulations, 1888. provides as follows:
whenever any person in the navy who
shall have been placed under suspension.
arrest or confinement. or otherwise pun
ity. such discharge shall be bar to further
disciplinary proceedings in the case by any
naval authority"
The Plea Not n Valid One.
1t does not appear that Carpenter Shep-
pard was ever released and entirely dis
charged by competent authority. and
therefore. he cannot plead the immunity
which would be given by such release or
discharge as a bar to further disciplinary
proceedings. For the reasons aboye stated,
am Of the opinion that Carpenter Shep-
pard's plea in bar of trial was not a valid
one, and that the court rightly overruled
such plea and proceeded to trial upon the
merits Of the case.
From an examination of the evi-
dence in the case of Carpenter
Sheppard it appears that an affidavit
signed by w. r. Ireland. NJ. D., witness
for the defense. who had failed to appear.
was introduced and accepted by the court
as evidence. The forty-first article Of the
articles for the government Of the navy re-
quire that IAN oath or affirmation
shall be administered to all witnesses before
any court-martial,by the president thereof"
There is no authority of law for the ac-
ceptance by naval courts martial Of an
eX parte affidavit as evidence, and the
affidavit The Introduction of an affidavit
of this character by the prosecution would
have been fatal to the validity of the pro-
ceedings, but inasmuch as the matters con-
tanned in said affidavit were favorable to
the accused, it's Introduction by the de-
fense cannot have that effect Subject to
the above remarks the procee0ings. finding