Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-10-05

fully bow to whatever decision the court
might reach in the matter. Counsel for
Major Armes, thought Mr. Morrison, admit
ted the facts contained in the returns.
''They admit all were pleaded facts in
terrupted Judge Bradley. but not the legal
conclusions to be deducted therefrom that
you would make"
But, continued Mr.. Morrison. 1t seemed
to him that they had admitted that in the
opinion of Gen. Schofield Maj Armes had
committed a military offense. And hence
1t appeared to him that the only question
at issue was the authority of the acting
secretary Of war to order the arrest. He
could not admit for an instant, explained
Mr.. Morrison. that in the eyes of military
laws and regulations there exists any diff
ference between officers on the active list
and those on the retired list. The retired
officers, according to the provisions of law.
are not subject and amenable to some of
the articles of war. but, he declared. to all
Of them.
The Question to BE Decided.
Mr.. Morrison was proceeding to argue
that officers on the retired list are subject
to trial by courts-nartial when Judge Brad
= ley explained that there could be no con-
tention as to that point, but the question
to be decided was, was the arrest of Mai
Armes authorized by law? and the court
told Mr.. Morrison that the burden of prov
ing that it was rested upon him. Judge
Bradley also explained that it would be we'll
for Mr.. Morrison to explain the true legal
meaning and significance of this term in
the articles OF war: Officers charged with
crime" &c.
In reply to the courts inquiry, Mr.. Nor
rison explained that the term should not
be construed to mean civil crimes, but
meant any offense against military law
and prejudicial to discipline When such
an Offense is committed, said Mr.. Morri-
son. whether by active or retired officers,
an arrest Of the offender becomes an in
n Af r1or
such offender. Close arrest explained Mr..
Morrison, meant not actual Imprisonment
or restraint. but was, in military affairs,
merely constructive confinement in such
case as the present one Such a taking
into custody. said Mr.. Morrison, was the
usual initiatory proceeding preceding trial
before court-martial, although he adj
mitted that 1t was not an invari1ble pre-
lim.nary proceeding. But after such an
arrest 1t is usual, upon the application of
the arrested officer, either active or. re-
tired. to grant him what Is known as re-
stra.nt within limits, and such limits might
be within the boundaries of post bar
racks, town or state. And such an arrest,
stated Mr.. Morrison, was in reality nothing
more. in effect. than the charging of an
offsnse against the arrested officer.
Maj. Armes' Onense.
Major Armes had, in writing the COM
plained-of letter and showing it in the very
face and teeth of Gen. Schofield, claimed
Mr.. Morrison, accused the general COM
handing the army Of the most he:nous
crimes known to military authorities.
While 1t might not have been committed
IN the actual personal presence of Gen.
Schofield. the general had personal knowl-
edge of the commission of the alleged Of
1ense. and was, therefore, fully authorized
and justified in initiating the proceedings
against Major Armes. AS to the conten-
ton of Major Armes' counsel that he had
been arrested without first being made ae-
qua,nted with the reason for his arrest, Mr..
Morrison read from military authorities to
show that an officer Is not entitled to know
forthwith the cause of his arrest, but must
submit to arrest, being entitled. however,
10 nave charges made known to him within
eight days thereafter. Such a provision of
military law, declared Mr.. Morrison, was
absolutely necessary to the preservation of
discipline arrd good order.
Inquiries by the Judge.
MI. MORRISON was proceeding to explain
that d retired officer might commit an act
of INSTRUMENTATION as much SO as all officer
on the active list. when Judge Bradley in
CURED how Maj. .Armes might be insubor-
dinate when he was not under any orders?
Nj. Morrison's reply was that Mai Armes
was subject to the orders of both the
President and the Secretary of War and he
became guilty of characterization when he
committed any act prejudicial to discipline
and good oder, the making of false charges
HSdiuSl beH ScnOuelQ DelnS, because OF the
falsenesS of the charges such an offense.
Judge Bradley next inquired whether Mr..
Mofrison Contended that at the time of the
arrest any charge had been made against
Maj. Armes? Mr.. Morrison replied that
there was, the charge having been made in
the bosom of Gen. Schofield. That is, said
Mr. Morrison, Gen. Schofeld, as acting Sec
rotary of war. knew that the ofrense had
been committed, and because of that
knowledge directed the arrest.
As to Making Arrests.
Judge Bradley explained that what he
wished to know was whether it is usual or
necessary for the officer making the arrest
to acquaint the officer arrested with the
cause of his arrest. Mr.. Morrison replied
that it is not. and he ventured the asser-
ton that not until, Maj. Armes told him
did the officer arresting him know the
cause of the arrest Not once in hundred
times is the cause then made known, he
explained.
Then remarked Judge Bradley, amidst
the laughter of those in the court room. Il
am very glad that 1 am not in the army
His Concluding Argument.
Mr.. Morrison next proceeded to discus
sion of the right of the acting secretary CT
war to order Major Arrnes' arrest, and he
entered into long legal argument on the
point, ccntending that the secretary's order
for the arrest was in effect the order CT
the President, the unquestioned command
ing officer of the army. For that reason.
said Mr.. Morrison. in conclusion, the arrest
was a legally authorized one, and he, there
fore. asked that the petition for the writ
of habeas corpus be denied, and that Major
Armes be returned to the custody CT the
military authorities, to be dealt with by
them according to the military laws and
regulations.
Mr.. SiddOns Follows.
Mr.. Morrison was followed by Mr. Sid
dons, who on behalf of Maj. Armes, made
the concluding argument in the case. He
dweit at length upon what he claimed was
the clearly unconstitutional and unneces-
sary arrest Of Maj. Armes. claiming that
neither statutes nor even military law JUS
titled the arrest and praying for his dis
charge.
Upon the conclusion of Mr.. S:ddons' argu-
ment Judge Bradley took the case under
advisement, announcing that he would rem
der a decision in the matter next Thursday
morning.
Until a decision in the case Mai. Armes'
DersOual remembrance uaa coptjpuad