The herald., 1895-10-11
Judge Bradley Uses Some Very
Strong language
SchOFlELD IS SCARlFlED
No Charge Was Preferred Against the
Petitioner
Hts Arrest Was Unjust, Unlawful, Arbitrary,
fyraBDlcal and capriclous on the
Part vi Scholieid

l
/ WASHINGTON, Oct. l0.-In dlseharg
ing Captain Armes. whose arrest and
/ confinement General Schcfeld had order
Ell by virtue Of his position as acting sec
retary Of war, judge Bradley says:
The arrest aud OBTAINING of Armes,
carrying bin away from his home TO bar
racks and holding him in close arrest
without any sntecedent charge OF ori me
I preferred in any way against him, was
I and IS unjust. unlawful, arbitrary. tyran-
meal ana capricious on the part of Gen
I eral Schoreld IN whatever capacity he
acted, whether setting as lieutenant-gen-
| eraI Or acting secretary of war, The
/ petitioner is dischaiged.'i
The Judge then went into the matter at
considerable length ana said:
"No charge was preferred against
Asmes at the time of his arrest; no crime
has been charged since, and for the
oftense alleged no arrest was necessary.
The arrest and conhnement were unlaw-
full and oppressive, as the offense charged
would, upon substantiation, result only
in reprimand, suspension or dismissal;
the possession of the body Of the accused
was not necessary to carry out the charges
as would have been the case if imprison-
msnt or death was TO be the sentence"
Speaking of the presidents power in
army matters, the judge said: 1.-The
president of the United States is COM
mander-in-chief of the officers of
the army on the retired list. This
function of the chief executive, however.
is panied by narrowing care or
weighty responsibilities. His title of
COMMUNICATIVE chief. SO far as it relates
to retired officers, is shorn of all power to
impose duties, and appears to be an
empty name"
Judge Bradley expressly recognized the
right to court martial retired army Off
cor. Speaking of the letter written to
General Sohofield by Armes, he cited the
article OF war relative to complaints by
officers and men and said:
This was personal and private COM
munication to that officer. 1t makes
grave charges of persecution. injustice,
wrong and unjust and improper official
action by General Scbofeld to the petit
toner. If these charges were true, would
their making be conduct unbecocing an
officer and gentleman and prejudicial to
good order and military discipline? If
the petitioner believed or thought that
they were founded in truth would they
be such? The law states that an officer
or man In active service may make
lawful complaint of an officer if he thinks
he has been wronged by him. Can it be
that retired officer, out of active service,
engaged in the pursuits of civil life, can
not complain to the general commanding
the army of wrongs he believes that gen.
eral has inflicted upon him without be-
ing subjected to summary arrest and IN
generation and ultimate trial by court
martial?
If so, then there is a rigid, unwritten
discrimination against such an officer
that should receive early attention and
righting from our national legislature.
The war department. officials were much
disappointed and chagrined at the decis-
ion of Judge Bradley in the Armes case.
Secretary Lamont refused to say what
his purpose was, but it is inferred, in
view of the breadth of the decision, that
no attempt will be made to try the cap
tain by court martial pending the action
of the appellate court upon the appeal
noted today. The case has outgrown it's
original Importance in view of the courts
action today and now involves, it is said,
the whole question of amenability OF re-
tired officers to discipline.