Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1895-10-09
CAPT. ARMIES CASE.
The District Court Hears Arguments
and Then Reserves Its
Decision,

Washington, D. c., Oct. 5.-The case
of Capt. George A. Armes, retired, who
was arrested some days ago by order
of Lieut.-Gen. Schoield, acting secre>
tary Of war, came up today before Judge
Bradley of the Supreme court of the
District of Columbia. Soon after his ar
rest the captain was released on a writ of
habtas corpus, made returnable today.
When the case was called today coun,
sci for Gen. Schofield asked permission
to file a return ~amendatory of the orig,
lnal return already filed. This propo,
SltlOn was combat,ed by Armes' counsel,
but the ceurt decided to allow the
amended return to be filed, subject to
whatever action he might see fit to take
later in the case. In the course of the
argument it was contended on behalf OF
Armes that as q retired officer of the
army he was not under the jurisdiction
of Gen. Schoield as acting secretary of
war. He was, however, subject to Ger.
tain rules and articles of war, but only
such as applied to his condition as a re>
tired officer. In this condition it was
contended he could not be arrested for
disrespect to his superior officer, for the
reason that he had no superior officer,
and it was a perversion of official duty to
place him under arrest. The articles
of war comforting power to arrest ap'
piled only to officers IN the active list.
Counsel also stated It as his opinion
that Gen. Schoield knew that the arrest
was irregular, and by his amended re-
turn made an attempt to justify it on the
ground that the offense was a military
one and had been committed IN his pres
ence. The original return, it was said,
disclosed no causes for the arrest and an
. attempt had been made to remedy this
defect by offering an evasive and contra
dictOry return as an amendment. The
fact that no copy of the charges had
been furnished Capt. Armes, it was as
serted, was a fatal defect. as the regu-
lations specifically state that copies of
the charges upon which an arrest is
made must be furnished within twenty
four hours after the arrest, or the ac-
cuSed must be released. This regulation
applied to enlisted men, and when, was
asked, has the administration of military
justice been more tender to a + private h
an officer? The whole proceeding, it
was contended, was irregular and did
Capt. Armes a g%rievOus Wrong.
Chief Clerk Morrison of the Office of
judge acknowledgement Of the army re-
piled OF behalf of Gen. Schofeld. He
maintained that Capt. Armes is a mem
Der of the military establishment of the
United States and that he had been pro-
ceeded aginst strictly according to the
articles of war. Retired officers of the
army were subject TO the same reguIa-
ions III this regard as those on the active
list. He contended there was no differ
ence or distinction in the punishment of
offense by court-martial proceedings be-
cause IN officer happened to be on the
active or on the retired list. The latter
held practically the same relation to the
army as an officer on the active list en-
joying a leave of absence. Mr.. Morrison
upheld the legality of the arrest as al
ways the initiatory step in military pro,
ceedings, preceding in practically all
cases the making of formal charges. As
to the giving of information to Armes
of the charges against him, it was suffi-
cient that he had been informed of them
within eight days, the military differing
from the civil practice in this manner.
Armes had been insubordinate.