The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-02-21
FINDINGS or TIE COURT.

lf'Ic arc IIf 'IIt'i 30 Iaf.' n-
FiSpI>Gs or TIE COURT
Commonwealth of Virginia,
Adjutant-Gcucrdrs ONCE.
Richmond. Va. Feb. -. lN3
General Orders so. &. For The iufOrma-
lion of am concerned the findings and
. opiuious" OF the Court of Inquiry. as or
dcred I'm Special orders SO. I. current see
rics. from thcs, headquarters. IS published
herewith.
Tho decision of tlc Commander IN chief
on said findings and opinions is hereby
PROMULGATED. viii constitute part OF
This order auI Doe oheyoi ana respected
accordingly.
rINDING AID oIISIoN or INF COURT.
Armory lst ReEt va. Vols, Infantry,
Richmond. Va. Jan. 2,. 1885.
TN, court. having maturcly considered
tho evidence aidu.cd and the law appli-
cable 10 the case. bogs leave 10 submit 20
the Governor and Commander iu Chief
the followug finding and opinion:
IIB,I
First That tine ,ourt-martal which
convened at the 1rmory ~ tho First
Regiment OF Infantry ON November r.
1894 u pursuance of Special order No.
~ Exhibit Al. whether "a court be Jurc
Or not 10 was a court doe facto, and had
she ud'sputablc Ti-ht 90 inquire into the
legally OF its constitution.
Soc tho following authorities
n Ives on Military Law. j.. 30; title. Re
? sponsibihty for Excess Of jurisdiction and
succeeding Paragraphs.
lhid, @. -
Abrdgment Of Military Law win
fhropI. Elit. 1881 p. 1ol
Sec. also. testimony Of Lieutenant II.
&. Carhaueh, L. :. e.
SECOND.
The court mar.iil mentioned having
been court in fact, and. as the evidence
discloses. having questioned lbs own
constitution. did it do so c,nscieutiously
and in proper manner The entire evil
. dcuce in Oh case proves that the members
Of The court We've ao;uatoI 10y no imp 1p-
or motives in raising and passing upon
. he question of the courts legality. The
4 testimony shows that there had been for
{, o. considerable lin PRIOR 20 the order
? conN eniug the court a conviction upon
the mind OF az least one of the officers
composing the court that the colonel of
regiment had no legal authority 10
convene a general court martial. and
that this opinion had bcCl communicated
To- the others before and al the time of
the courts session. and also 10 the eel
Il onel of the regiment. tSec the testimony
in the case. especially that OF Captain
Anderson and Colonel Jones. iu which II
Is shown that Captain Anderson had
asked 20 be relieved from the duty of
serving upon courts so formed.
This court is of the opinion that there
was nothing improper in the manner in
which the said court martial acted. II
appears from its record exhibit 10 that
the judCe-adVocate. Lieutenant Payntor.
raised the queetion OF The lega existence
81 the tribunal. chat the court was clear
ed and mdturely considered the points
raised and finally sustained him in his
objections. u is immateridl 20 this inquiry
who posted the judSc-adyoCate.
It Is truo that the usual and formal
procedure under such circumstances is
for The Judge Advocate 10 bring irregu-
lariu-s affecting the courts constitution
10 the attention of che conveuug authOri-
Is before the court sits. If there be time
tSee Ives ,. 22O and 10 seems that I'm
this case there was Time bat We are of
the opinion that the question OF the legal
Is OF the court had been sufficiently
brought 90 the attention OF Colonel Jones
before the court-martial convened. He
was fully apprisel of Captain Auicrsou's
objections 900 repeated discussions with
him. tSce ais Captain Anderson s. testi.
mouy on the point that he had informed
Colonel Jones that be Captain Anderson
would post the judge-advocate Of this
court as 20 his views OF the law
THIRD.
Ii appears from the testimony that
when Captain Anderson applied 20 be re-
ncved from duty. and stated his reasons
10 Colonel Jones, the Colonel. though de-
Ginning 10 accede TO hs request suggested
that Captain Anderson should reduce his
views 90 writing. so that they might be
forwarded 10 "a higher military author
ity 10 Doe passed upon, and that Captain
Anderson declined 10 do So upon the
ground that n was not his duty. such mat
fsff a.fHt q d.
the duties OF the judee-adyocate OF the
court This refusal by Captain Auder-
son. although ~ no sense the violation
OF II duty. Was AN error of judgment
Had he followed that suggestion Of COL
onel Jones. 10 Is probable that an au-
thOritauVc settlement 81 the issues thus
made would have removed the occasion
for the action of the court martial OF
November q 1891 and for the converting
OF this cOurt OF inquiry.
In this Conuecu ton. We also believe that
Colonel Jones should have relieved Cap
tain Anderson from the duty OF service
upon the Court-martidl In question, after
Captain Anderson's earnest protest, in
which he had IN detail given his reasons
tor thinking that such courts were Tile
gal, and had stated 10 Col. Jones that
his convictions were 50 deeply rooted
That he was clearly OF the belief that one
acting as a member Of courts 50 constitu-
tea exposed himself as a MrOnSdocr 10
damages Ia a civil suit.
For the reasons above stated We be
lieve that the officers composing the said
court mar tial OF November e. 1891 were
not guilty OF disobedieuce Of orders. nor
OF a violation Of military discipline. IN
taking the action mentioned. Their pro-
ceeding was an honest expression Of their
conviction. under oath that they were
not a lawful tribunal. and = record OF
their acts. made a. the time was duly
returned 10 Colonel Jones. the review
ing officer. for his approval or disap-
proyal. but II appears TO us that the
cClOnd failed 10 indicate either his APP
proval or disapproval IN the regular and
proper manner.
FOURTH.
The proceedings that took place at the
armory OF the First regiment on Deem
her 10, 1854, were IN the presence OF off,
GERS who were not members Of the
court martial held on November a. 1894
and. furthermore. Colonel Jones had pre-
Nous 10 said meeting written his letter
Of December let. 70 the brigade COM
srGAAs tn which he USED tie following