Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1893-09-20
THE HUGHES COURT MARTIAL.

this paper, and we give it. in full. The
court was composed OF military officers
and their judgment is not to be ques-
toned, even by partisan clan, who
are endeayoring to make a martyr of
Hughes. The reasons they append are
in every way logical, and they treat the
subject in an exhaustive manner. leav-
no room for doubt. The result of the
court martial proves that before court
of nOn-partisan equity right will tri-
umph over anarchy and rebellion. Fol
lowing is the decision and able reason
ing:
FINDINGS AND SENTENCE.
OF the second specification, first charge
guilty.
Of the first charge-guilty.
OF the first specification, second
charge-gullty, but without crimina!ity.
OF the second specification, second
charge-guilty, but without criminal
ity.
OF the second charge-not guilty.
Of the specification, third charge
guilty, but without criminality.
OF the third charge-nOt guilty.
OF the specification, fourth charge
guilty.
or the fourth charge-gullty.
And the court did, thereupOn, SEN
tence him, the said Colonel j. w. +.
Hughes, of the Third regiment. Kan
sas National Guard, to be dlshonorably
dismissed from the military service of
the state Of Kansas.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS.
because of the gravity, the public
Importance and the fundamental char
acter of the questions upon which we
have been compelled to pass, we avail
ourselves of the privilege accorded
courts martial in extraordinary cases to
set forth our reasons for the conclu-
sions at which we have arrived.
Section 20 of the national guard act,
as practically construed by article NJ
of the rules and regulations, seems to
leave the state military board the def
least a matter of doubt, of which we
are bound to give the accused the bene-
fit, whether any offenSe not thus defin-
ed can be recognized by court martial
held under that act. Hence, as the
subject matter of charges and 8 is not
embraced in the OffenSes defined IN ar
ticle III of the rules and regulations
prescribed by the state military board,
we have, while convictlng the accused
of the specifications, found him not
guilty of those charges.
"Our finding as to the fourth charge
rests entirely upon its own merits, I'M
influenced by the question whether the
order mentioned In the specifications
under the first charge was lawful or not
An officer may disobey or decline to ex-
ecute an unlawful order, but he still
owes the loyalty of military subordi-
nate to his chief, and must, for the
time, at least, lock in his own bosom
both the fact that such order has been
given and the fact that he has refused
to obey it. The conduct of Colonel
Hughes toward the COMMUNICATIVE chief
was in gross disregard of the courtesy
due from one gentleman to another in
civil life, and, as the conduct of SOL
der can not, if the National guards of
Kansas is to maintain any diciplne at
all, be under any circumstances palli-
ated nor cOndoned, much less held guilt
less. Hence. without regard to his
guilt or innocence of the first charge,
we find the accused guilty of the fourth.
Our finding as to this past offense is
necessarily judgment as to the future
conduct of officers of the national guard;
and no good citizen can wish TO give en-
couragement in future to such conduct
as that of which Colonel Hughes was
guilty in doing, while in uniform and
still in command, to the very persons
against whom. rightly or not. he had
been ordered to proceed, and publicly
revealing the subsisting order of his su-
perior officer and bQasting of disobedi-
ence to that order, while, ct the same
time, assuring them they should not be
molested while he remained in COM
mand, Under any possible view of it
this was conduct to the prejudice OF
good ordsE ana military discipline, and
demeanor unbeeoming gentleman and
soldier.
Under the first charge We have been
OhlI0ad n lad fyl,
lie at the very base of constitutional
government. and we shall give the rea.
sons for our decision 10 the end that its
correctness may be inteIligentiy judged
That the accused was guilty, in fact
OF the otfense of disobeying an order OF
his superior officer is not denied. Hi:
defense is that the order was unlawful
IN that it required the election of thu
constitutional house OF representative.
from representative hall, while tia
house was in actual session, and out o.
this defense two questions arise, anC
have been ably debated before us: First
did the order require the election of th,
constitutional hoase; and second, if /
did, was it unlawfulY
The accused also contends that tn,
order was ambiguous, but as the com
mander-in-chief, who issued it, Was il
the same building, and as he and TIN
accused actually discussed the order at
ter it had been issad without any sug
gestion of this character having beeI
made, this point can not be considered
If he was in doubt as to the precis
meaning of the order it was the duty O
the accused, before refusing to obey il
to call upon his superior officer for
more speci&c coEmand,
The two rival bodies haZiQs after
wards coalesced, both the Douglas
house and the Dunsmore house wer
| merped in the house of representatives