Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-10-05
Argument on His Petition for q
Habeas Corpus Writ.
CONTENTIOUS OF THE GOVERNMENT
Many Questions Asked of Counsel
by Judge Bradley.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Judge Bradley today considered the petit
ton Of Maj. George A. Armes. a retired
| officer of the army, for his release, by writ
| Of habeas corpus, from arrest by the mil
| itary authorities, made last week by an
| order of the acting secretary OF war, be-
| cause of an alleged offensive letter written
| by MAJ. Armes to Lieut. Gen. Schofield.
| As. stated in The Star at the time, Mai
| Armes was, on the day following his ar
| rest, released by Judge Bradley upon his
| personal recognizsnce in the sum of $500
for his appearance in court today.
|s When the case was taken up this morn
Ing the court room was crowded; many
| of those present being army officials. Maj.
Armes was accompanied by his counsel.
Messrs. Ralston and Siddons, the military
authorities being represented by Mr. J.
n. Morrison Of the War Department Upon
| the calling up of .he case Mr.. Morrison
asked for leave to file a supplemental re-
| turn or answer to the petition for the writ
| of hdbeas corpus on behalf of Col Closson,
| the commardant Of the arsenal post, where
| Maj. Armes was corfined. Mr.. Ralston OBJ
| tected on the ground that the supplemental
| return was irregular and insufficient, and
| should not be allowed to be tiled, II not
| being matter of risht.
| Judge Bradley, however, granted Mr.. Nor
| rison leave to file it, and when it had been
formally filed, Mr.. Ralstan asked for Mai.
| ArMes' discharge, because. as he observed.
the supplemental return failed to show
| that his client was held by authority Of
| due process of law.
! The Supplemental Bill.
Before passing upon Mr.. Ralston's mo-
:ion, Judge Bradley directed Mr.. Morrison
to read the supplemental return. That
was done, the supplemental return show
ing, among other things, that on the 18th
| of September Armes held the office of cap
| tain of cavalry; that ne was retired on
| that date with the rank of captain and
| from that date until the 9th Of September.
| 1885, he was an officer of the United States
army entitled to wear uniform and to draw
| three-fourths pay and was duly borne on
the Army Register and was subject Ito the
| rules and articles of war and to be tried
by court martial for any breach thereof"
| That on the 21th of September. while Gen.
| Armes appeared at the door Of the room
| in the State, War and Navy building, usu-
| ally used, and at this time used, as the
| Office of the lieutenant general command
| field was at the time acting secretary of
| war. That when Armes was told by the
messenger at the door that he could not
see Gen. Schofield at that time, Armes de-
hvereo to the messenger. one Richard
Jones, a typewriter letter signed by
| Armes. and directed him, the messenger. to
| denver the Same TO tne SAID SCnOnclQ.
That Gen. Schof1eld read the letter and
| that "he. the said Schofield, as Secretary
of War, deemed him, the said Armes, to
| have committed In the said Schofield's
edge a grave military offense in writing
| and causing to be delivered the said letter."
| that 1.-The said act was highly insubordinate
and unmilitary. to the prejudice Of good or
der and military discipline, as well as con-
| duct unbecoming an officer and a gentle
| man: that in order to bring the said Armes
| to trial before court-martial for the said
aps and ID
| the order for his arrest to be issued"
| The amended return included the letter
| written by Maj. Armes, and after denying
its charges, refers to the following army
| regulation: -s---g-----
| "Oficers charged with crime shall be ar
| rested and confined in any barracks, quar-.
by the commanding officer; and any officer
| who leaves his confinement before he is set
at liberty by his commanding officer shall
be dismissed from the service"
Retired Army Omcers.
| Replying to the amended answer or return,
| Mr.. Ralston contended that both the orig
inal return and the supplemental one failed
to show the cause of Maj. Armes' arrest.
Maj Armes. explained Mr.. Ralston a retired
| officer of the army, was arrested without
any authority whatever: He denied that q
1
| the same rules and regulations in all cases
applicable to officers on the active list.
The section of the articles Of war relied
| upon in support Of the arrest, said Mr..
| Ralstcn, applied to officers on the active
list, and not to retired officers living, as
side CT any command. But rotwithstand-
| ing that fact, stated Mr. Ralston, the home
| CT Maj. Armes .had been violated by a
wholly unauthorized arrest. The arrest
1 pva Ia rad Mr al Lott ole
| sary, and, reading from opinions of the
| judge advocate of The army, he argued that
| an arrest in such a case was not even nee
| essary as a preliminary to the institution
| of court-martial trial. Every man, de-
| clnred Mr.. Ralston. in this country has the
| right to know for what he is arrested,
| whether he be private citizen or an officer
| OF the army, and yet neither the original
return nor the amended one notified the
court or the petitioner Of the reason for
| his summary arrest
Attacks Mai. SchoReld.
The amended answer Mr.. Ralston char
| acterized as discreditable to the lieutenant
general of the army, because. as he con-
| tended, it is evasive and untrue. General
Schofeld declared that the alleged offense
| of Major Armes WAS committed in his
presence, whereas. in fact, declared Mr..
| Ralston, Major Armes was not in the pres
ence of General Schotield, for he had been
denied ADMISSION to the presence OF the
general. The whole truth was, said Mr..
Ralston, that General Schofield had taken
| advantage of his temporary position as
| acting secretary of war to vent upon Major
| Armes personal spite and enmity. Even
| in the case of an arrested enlisted man, ex-
planned Mr.. Ralston, charges must be filed
| within twenty-four hours, and yet in the
| case of Ma jor Arrnes charges were not filed
| until five days after his arrest. Hence, he
| could but ask since when has military law
| become less tender toward an officer than
| to the enlisted man? 1t might be con-
| tended. said Mr.. Ralston, by the military
| authorities that In the present case the
| civil courts have no right to interfere. but
as to that he was era;ifed to be able to
state that there could be no question OF
| the right of the civil courts to interfere
where a wrong has been committed. He
| therefore asked the discharge of Major
Armes
Mr.. Morrison Replies.
Replying to Mr.. Ralston, Mr.. Morrison
stated that at the very outset of the case
| he wished to deny that there is in the case
any conflict or contest of authority between
| the military and civil authorities. The mill
| tary authorities, said Mr.. Morrison, fully
recognize the authority and power of the
civil courts in the case, and would cheer