The record-union., 1895-10-11
Regulations,

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10.-Major G. A.
Armes, the retired army officer arrested
some days ago on the order of Lieutenant
General Schofeld. while the latter was
acting as Secretary of War. was dis
charged from custody this morning in
Judge Bradley's court on the prisoner 5
application for his permanent discharge
on writ of habeas corpus. The courts
opinion was read from carefully pre-
pared written copy, and concluded with
vigorous denunciation OF the order OF
General Schofeld. The quiet criticism
of some army officers concerning the
method of the arrest was transformed by
the court into severe structures upon the
commanding officer, whose persons al
feelings was held to be the only occa-
sion for the arrest and confinement of
Major Armes. j. \. Morrison OF the
Judge Advocate Generals staff, the at
iorney for the Secretary of War, gave
notice of an appeal.
Judge Bradley's conclusion was as fol-
lows: Being of the opinion that the ar
rest and taking of the prisoner into GUS
tody. carrying him away from his home
quarters to barracks not MS own, and
holding him in close arrest without any
antecedent charge of crime preferred III
any way against him, WAS unjust, I'M
lawful, arbitrary. tyrannical and CAPRI
cious on the part of General Schotield, in
whatever capacity he acted, whether as
Lieutenant General or as Secretary OF
War. and that the prisoner is entitled TO
be discharged. 1t Is SO ordered"
The opinion entered largely into a re-
view of the army regulations. and the
relative standing of retired and active
of A. l,nrT ,,K,p fiR.a
court says, only one imposed duty OH
retired officer, that OF Notifying the de-
partment of his address every month. II
was true that the President was Com
mander-in- Chief of the retired officer,
and the Secretary OF War represented
him in that capacity. but his command
was not accompanied by burdenlng care
or weighty responsibility. The return OF
the writ made by Colonel Ciosson, in
whose custody. the prisoner was placed,
showed that General Schofeld was Act
ing Secretary of War 1t the time Major
Armes' letter was delivered To him, and
the delivery of the letter was claimed to
be an offense committed in his presence.
Whether this metaphysical problem
could be maintained is not material"
The court dwell for some time on the
fact that the punishment for the otfense
committed by NJ ajor Armes-if an offense
had been comm itted-was either by re-
primand or dis missal, and this being
true his arrest and confinement did not
seem TO be essential.
The statements made in the letter de-
livered to General Schofield contained
some grave charges, but If they were
true, or if Major Armes believed or
thought they we're founded, was it," the
court asked, "a breach OF military discf-
pline for him to complain, OF seek justice
for what he telt TO be grievance? The
army regulations provide for the invesii-
CATION OF griev ances or alleged wrongful
acts committed on an officer or common
soldier in the active service, and could 1t
be possible" continued Judge Bradley,
that retired army officer, engaged in
private business, could not complain
without being arrested and imprisoned.
If such were the case, an unjust dis
elimination existed that should early be
brought TO the attention OF Congress-"
Judge Bradley referred TO the regula-
lions covering arrests OF officers, stipulat-
ing that they should be simply notified TO
repair 10 their quarters, and called atteL-
ton to the violation OF that regulation in
this case.
Although without the power TO assign
him TO duty" said the court, yet the
petitioner, at his residence, having no
barracks, tent or quarters, in violation of
Regulation 99l, which prescribes the
manner in which arrests may be i'm
article OF war, without the exist
ence of the slightest necessity Tor either
arrest or confinement, or any occasion
therefor, except The qualification of a
personal feeling, the petitioner was taken
into custody by an officer, with a file OF
soldiers and carried to the Washington
barracks under the order which required
him 30 be held under close arrest; under
guard, If necessary. If he were liable At
all for arrest and confinement, the only
arrest and confinement that could be law
fully imposed would be such as IS pre-
Rcribed by the Articles of War"
TRIAL OF A SOLDIER BY a MILITARY
COURT.
WASHINGTON, Oct. I0.-A decision by
the Assistant Secretary of War to-day
issued In circular form by General Miles
for the information of the army is not ex-
actiy applicable to the Schoneld- Arnes
case, but the present prominence of the
latter makes it of unusual interest. The
decision in question relates TO the trial by
q military court of a soldier on bail for
trial by civil court. and reads as toll
lows:
"a soldier on bail for trial by civil
court may, while he is in this status. be
brought before a military court for trial.
but the military proceedings cannot in
terfere with the civil, and if a term of con-
finement is likely TO be awarded, which
would cover the time fixed for The mans
trial by the civil court, the military trial
must be postponed. AS the soldier is not
Withdrawn from duty by the civil pro-
ceedings, bis pay status is not affected