The evening times., 1895-12-02
IRnEs GIsl IReUn[ITs
Court Of Appeals Considers the
Famous Army Scandal.
CLAIMS OF THE LAWYERS
That Lieut.. Gen. SchOfield's Action
Was Entirely La awful-Messrs. Raj
ston 4 Siddons, for he Ma JOr Assert
the Contrary.

The eourt-styled case of Henry whitney
Closson against George A. Arnies, involving
all of tile points and covering the cfrcum-
stances growing out OF and attending the
arrest and confinement september ~ or
Mai George A. Armes, u. 8. A, retired, by
Col. Closson and upon the order OF Gen.
schofield, as acting Secretary OF War,
came up for arguments OF counsel beiore
the District court OF appeals today.
The preceding history of the case is al
ready familiar to the readers of The Times.
Attorney j. N. morrison. counsel Tor Col
Closson. made citations'of thirty errors OF
the lower court, upon which he proceeded 10
argue.
TIE case was appealed from proceedings
before Justice Bradley. who is in the orie,
filed by Mr.. Morrison dlleged to have erred
in deciding tnat Maj. Armes had been He
gally restrained Of liberty, and that his ar
rest and imprisonment was unlawfui; that
he also erred in holding that the arrest
was made and the petitioner held In close
confinement without antecedent charges
having been preferred.
CLAIMS OF COUNSEL
1t was also coOtended by Mr.. Morrison
unlawful for the commanding officer 10
place Mai. Armes under arrest FOR the
purpose OF bringing him to trial, AMI
Iurfner that Justice bradley was not cor
rect in the decision as to the p sppiicaG9,n ,n
OF war. His decision was that the term
does not include minor offenses, disorders
and neglects, and Mr.. Morrison cited au-
thorities To the contrary.
In deciding that the arrest and confine-
ment were in violation of rmy Regulation
S9l; that such action was without the
existence of the slightest necessity" or
any occasion therefore. except the graft
fieation Of personal feeling" was de-
clared by counsel to be without warrant
dad tlas.ff
court erred in deciding against the pro-
vision or section 1b16, OF The Revised
Statutes. that retired army Officers are
subject to the rules and articles OF war
any breach thereof"
Mr. Morrison argued that the wording
the Armes case than the one given it when
applied to other Officers OF the army or
to cadets or to commissioned Officers. .
He contended that the court below erred
in deciding that the Presidents title OF
comnander-in-cfief ST. far as it relates
TO retired army officers, is an empty one,
upon the grounds held by Justice Bradley
that he cannot assign them In duty. He
was also in errar, counsel asserted, in de-
Gliding questions relating Ia the useless
ness or necessity, the prupriety or impro-
priety. OF arrest and crInrinement within
the scope nf the power OF the Acting
Secretary Of War.
MAI. ARMEs' CONTENTION.
Maj. Armes. who was present in court.
was represent by Attorneys Raiston and
Siddons, who cont ended that the only ex-
cuse for the arrest and detention OF their
client was an order therefor, signed by
the Acting Secretary Of War. and that at
the time OF his arrest no charges had been
formulated and none existed, and so far
as the record shows, none hare Deen yet
served upon him..
1t was admitted by counsel that Mai.
ATmeS was an officer on the retired list
and as such is subject to the articles of
I'M 4 nm tod n Pr
tired officer he was subject only la such
regulations as applied to his status. He
may not be ordered tn any duty against his
wishes, save at the Soldiers Home, and by
the regulations he is charged whit no Obli-
CATION to the ooyernment except TO report
monthly his address, and this Is obviously
for his own benefit.
Mai. Armes, not being assigned or assign
able to any duty. had no .barrack ks or Tent
as contemplated in section 81. aud II that
section is applica bile a all. the Secretary OF
War could only direct him tu CONSIDER him
self in arrest and not TO leave his quar-
ters. which. under that construction, would
bc his home OF regular ha bitation.
He could not be- said to have Il regular
iabitatiun. and unGe could he created for
him. Article 65 can only properly be ap-
piled tn officers an the active service. and
its application in i::s CT sc was in violation
of all military uSa g.,s ami coEstit uted an in
OF Armes rights Cor which civil
courts by haheas corpus'wll always afford
redress
INvALIDATED HIS ARREST.
The detention of Mai. Armes without
prior forInaity of charges iuvaiida ted his
arrest and confinement. Article Go reads
that Officers charged with crime shall
be arrested which means that arrest
must he preticated upon charges.
A court martial is a tribunal OF special
and limited Jurisdiction, called into exist
ence upon notice Of special and temporary
purposes. and when these purposes are
served it is dissolved. Its acts are only
valid when within the prescribed iurisdic-
ton. While Mai. Armes may be tried
by military court. II is only n amer pre-
scrit,eti and under proper jurisdiction.
His attorneys do not ask mat Mai. a rmes
he discharged from further liability be-
cause of defects in the original arrest and
bGt upon the grounds pri-
that no power whatever existed
to make the arrest and secondly, beca use he
was not informed of the nature of the accu-
sation against him.