Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-10-11
ARMIES DISCHARGED.
Judge Bradley Holds There Was No
Occasion for His Arrest.
DENuNcIATION OF sCHOFiELD.
Charge That the General Allowed
Personal Feeling TO influence His
the Courts Decision.

WASHINGTON, ID. c., october 10
Major G.. \. Armes, the retired officer,
arrested some days ago on the order OF
Northumberland Schofeld. while act
ing as Secretary OF War, was discharged
from custody this morning In Judge
Bradley's court. on the prisoners appu-
cation for his permanent discharge on
writ Of hebas corpus. The Curtis opin-
ion was read from a carefully prepared
written copy. and concluded with a Wig
orous denunciatlon OF the order Of Gene
raj Schoheld. The severe criticism of
army officers concerning the method OF
the arrest was transformed by the Court
into severe structures upon the command
ing officer. whose personal feeling" was
held TO be the only occasion for the ar
rest and confinement Of Major Armes
From the order discharging Major
Armes Mr.. j. y. Morrison. of the Judge
Advertisements STAFF the attorney for
the Secretary of War, gave notice of an
appeal
Judge Bradleys conclusion was as fol-
lows:
Being of the opinion that the arrest
and taking OF the prisoner into custody,
and carrying him from his home quarters
to barracks not his own. and holding him
In close arrest. without any charge OF
crime preferred In any way against him,
was and Is unjust. unlawful. arbitrary.
tyranical. and caprclous on the part OF
General Schofield in whatever capacity he
acted. whether as lieutenant-ge or
as Secretary OF War; and that the prison.
or Is entitled to be discharged 1t is so
ordered"
The opinion entered largely into a re-
view of the army regulations and the
relative standing of retired and active
officers.
The return to the writ made by Colonel
CIosson in whose custody the prisoner
was placed. showed that General Schofield
was acting Secretary of War at the time
Major Armess letter was delivered 10
him. and the delivery of the letter was
claimed to be an offence committed IN
his presence.
The Court dwelt for some time on the
fact that the punishment for the offence
committed by Major Armes-if any offence
had been committed-was either by repri-
mand or dismissal. and this being true,
his arrest and confinement did not seem
10 be essential.
THE REGULATIONS.
Judge Bradley, referred to the regula-
ton covering arrests of officers, stlpu-
latlng that they should be simply notified
10 repair to their quarters. and called
attention to the violation OF that regula-
ton in this case. Although without the
power to assign him to duty" said the
Court, "yet the petitioner. at his resi-
dence, home barracks. or tent. in viola
ton of regulation 99l. which prescribes
The manner an arrest may be imposed,
and in violation OF the fifth article or
war, without the existence Of the slight
est necessity for either arrest or con-
finement, or any occasion therefor except
the qualification Of a personal feeling, the
petitioner was taken into custody by an
officer with a file of soldiers, and car
ried 10 Washington barracks. under an
order which required him to be held under
close arrest. under guard. II necessary.
He was not liable at all to arrest and
confinement The only arrest and con-
flnement that could be lawfully imposed
would be such as is prescribed by the
articles OF war"
The announcement by Mr.. Morrison
that there would be an appeal taken from
the decision of Judge Bradley injected
an unexpected element Of uncertainty into
the speculations regarding the future
course OF the proceedings. 1t was stated
al the War Department. when the charges
based upon General Schoheld's actions
were formally preferred against captain
Armes, that court-martial would be
summoned and the prisoner prosecuted
before ii irrespective OF the decision In
the habeas-corpus case. No date was
named. however, for the calling of the
court. and to-day, when >>gury was made
at the office OF the Judge A>>ocate-Gene-
raj In respect TO this matter. ColoneI
Lieber replied that he had nothing TO
say and no information to give about the
Armes case.
From Mr. Morrisons action in the
matter. it is inferred that the proceedings
against Captain Armes in court-martial
will be held In allegiance. waiting further
Proceedings In the habeas-corpus case
1t had been stated that in the event
the courts found the action of General
Schofield TO be Illegal and unwarranted
Captain Armes would enter suit for dam
ages But it cannot be stated now that
this will be done.