Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-08-23
ARMY SUNDAY OBSERVANCE
1t Was the Custom of the Service Prior to
1862.
What Gen. Brooke Said in Acting
Upon the Findings of the Worth
COurt-MartiaI Case.

The record of the proceedings and findings
Of the court-martial in the case Of Mai
William 8. Worth, second infantry, has
been received at the War Department.
Copies Of 1t have been made for the benefit
Of the President and the Secretary of War,
at whose instance the court was ordered
The original record is' filed among the
archives Of the office of the judge advocate
general Of the army. Inasmuch as the Off
Ger was acquitted and the proceedings were
duly approved by the department COM
r,ander, the case is one that does not call
for any action on the part of the War De-
partment.
Maj. Worth was charged with disobe-
cience Of orders, in violation of the sixty
second article Of war. in having ordered
certain enlisted men Of his command to
engage in target practice on Sunday. As
has been already stated in The Star, the
court acquitted him of the charge and Gen.
Brooke. commanding the department. ap-
proved the findings. In acting upon the
case Gen. Brooke said:
In the foregoing case of Mai William s.
Worth, second infantry, the defense ad-
mitted the giving and execution of the or
der for target practice on Sunday. but at
tempted to justify on three grounds: First,
that the target practice ordered was
matter of strict necessity. and, therefore,
not within the prohibition of orders of
November 10, 1862. Second, that should
the court hold such target practice not to
have been a matter of strict necessity,
still IL the accused in deciding that II was
acted in good faith, he is protected. Third,
that the order of November ID. 1862, al
legged to have been disobeyed by the &C
cIsed was not in force.
An Established Custom.
las regards the third of these defenses
the reviewing authority expresses 1t as his
opinion that the requirement of Sunday
observance in the army was not initiated
by the order Of November Is. 1862, and that
the existence Of such a requirement at the
present time does not depend upon the
fact that that order has been kept in force.
1t was an established custom of the service
prior to November 10. 1862, that evident
necessity alone would justify a deviation
from an orderly observance of Sunday, and
the order Of that date N limiting Sunday
labor In the army to the measure of strict
necessity did no more than admonish the
service that In the great conflict then going
on this custom should not be lost sight of.
Indeed, the language Of the order itself
indicates this to be true, containing as it
does reference to similar requirements in
orders issued by Washington. In this view
whether the order Of November Is, 1862
was In force or not, an order imposing I'M
necessary target practice on Sunday would
be in violation of an established custom of
the service, and as such punishable under
the sixty-second article of war as conduct
prejudicial to good order and military disci-
pline.
The Exigencies of the Service.
'Courts-martial possess the power in their
findings OF making exceptions and SUBJ
situations in the allegations of a charge,
thus declaring the exact measure OF guilt
deemed established in evidence. This power
&c staf 0,l,,
declared must be one included within the
allegations of the charge. 1t thus appears
that If the court had believed with the de-
tense that the order Of November Is, 1867
was not in force, but was convinced that
the accused was not without fault in the
issue OF the order complained Of, IL was
within Its discretion and was, in fact, its
duty to have eliminated in its findings all
reference in the charges to disobedience of
orders. and TO have convicted him on the
remaining allegations, and of conduct to
the prejudice OF good order and military
discipline. Its failure to exercise this dis
erection indicates that its finding of not
guilty was based upon the belief that the
ORDER Tor Sunday target practice given by
the accused was jrstified by the exigencies
of the service then existing, or that the
order was given by him in the exercise of
an horest and reasonable discretion, rather
than upon the more technical defense that
the order alleged TO have been disobeyed by
him was not in force. That this was the
true basis Of the courts findings is further
made obvious from an examination Of the
evidence OF record upon which the court
relied.
The court. being composed Of thirteen
officers OF high rank and of an average
service OF more than thirty-two years must
be conceded to have been well qualified
by education and experience to pass upon
and correctly determine the questions be-
fore II, and the conclusions Of this sworn
body thereon should, in the opinion of the
reviewing authority, be very reluctantly
criticised.
The True Principle.
IN promulgating the findings and acauit-
tai in this case the reviewing authority de-
sires that the result reached shall not be
understood as sanctioning in any degree
unnecessary Sunday labor in the army, but
rather as the announcement of the prin-
ciple that where an officer Of the army is
vested by law or orders with a discretion in
the performance OF an Official duty and he
honestly and with reason exercises that
discretion, he is not to be held criminally
responsible for any errors of Judgment he
may have committed.
The findings and acQuittal are approved
Major Worth will be released from arrest
and restored to duty"