New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-13
PRICE THREE CENTS.
WILL THERE BE A TRIAL.
SPECULATION IN NAVAL CIRCLES ABOUT
ADMIRAL MEADIrS CASE.
NOVEL POINTS RAISED AS TO THE POSSIBILITY
OF COURT neutrality-suspicious. HER
BERTs PROBABLE ACTION-MucH DE-
PENDs ON THE ADMIRAES ANSWER
TO DEMAND FOR AN EXPI.A-
NATION-CAN COURT
BE ORTAINED?
fBY TELEGRAPH TO THE rRIBUNE.1


Washington May 12.-What will be done In the
case of Admiral Meade? This question is one
of much interest to officers Of the Navy and is the
chief topic of conversation among those on duty
here. The news that the President has deter
mined that the Admiral must be called upon to
explain his words published in The Tribune
adds zest to the matter. The case Is one OF unu-
si,al Importance, and presents a number OF novel
points Of law and fact.
II Secretary Herbert has not already done 80
he will write the Admiral and demand an explanae
ton. If the usual course is followed. clipping
from The Tribune containing the interview wnicn
has created so much comment will be forwarded
to the Admiral and he will be directed to INFORM
the Secretary Of the Navy II the remarks attrib-
uted to him were actually his II the Admiral re-
plies affirmatively. Of two things will be done.
Either letter will be sent him pointing out
wherein he has grossly violated naval regulations
and rebuking him for his conduct, or he Will b
ordered before a court-marta, II one can lawfully
be convened. The action OF the Navy Department.
will depend upon the reply Of Admiral Meade.
Just here two points will be raised which naval
officers are discussing with much interest ana
which make the case unique. There is no power
under the law which compel any one officer
or civilian, to crlmnate himself Admiral Meade
ing the question as to whether he made the re-
marks published in The Tribune. His refusal TO
reply would in a strict sense. be breach OF naval
discipline and his contumacy could be made tho
subject OF a charge to be considered by a court
martial. Here again. however, the question OK
the lawful rights Of person would arise. Ad-
miral Meade would be justified legally. In refus-
ing to give evidence on charge which would teno
to crimnate him. Properly he could decline 70
answer any interrogatories Of this nature, ana as
under the law civilians cannot be forced 10 tesuy
before naval courts there would be no evidence 10
convict the Admiral II The Tribune reporter re-
fused TO appear.
4 few years ago Commander Joseph b. Cogn-
lam OF the Navy. was arraigned before court'
martial under the allegation that he had Writ
ten or inspired certain publications In one OF the
papers of Vallejo. Cal. rejecting upon ms su-
periors Although several were summoned, no
representative OF the paper appeared before 'ne
court. Commander Coghlan would not tes1liy III
the case. holding that 10 answer questions put pus
TO him might bring about his conviction inc
court had to adjourn without reacnlhs sen"
tonce a similar experience might follow IL Ad.
miral Meade arra!grod. The result "ouio
be farcica. , -
Another question in the Admirars case is. Can
n naval court-marta, competent TO try an omcer
OF his rank. be convened? There are oniy tn.ee
officers in active service who are senior 10 the
Adrniral-Rrown, Walker and Ramsay-and the
question arises Can retired officers or those
Junior to an accused compose court or part ~
IL? The law would seem to preclude retired ON
GERS from such service. Section 1,4S2 or the he-
yised Statutes provides, In effect, that Officers on
the retired list shall not be employed on any ac-
tive duty except in time OF war. IL a court -
convened OF active officers majority or lts fnen-
bers would have To be Junior in rank 10 tne Ad.
miral Such a course appears to be contrary 10
Article IS Of the Articles for the Government OK
the Navy which are the provisions OF section
l.624 OF the Revised Statutes. That article says
In general that a cOurt-martial shall consist OF
not more than thirteen nor less than hVe conn
missioned officers members. ana tnat IN no
case when Il can be avoided without INJURY 10
the service shall more than one-halt or 'he court
exclusive OF the president, be junior 10 the OIL
Ger TO be tried. An opinion or the Attorney -ren-
oral rendered some time ago, held that the Jun
,ority OF some of the members or court is not
available as an objection 10 the validity OF tne
proceedngs but this ruling probably does not
epply 10 cases where a majority or the members
ore juniors OF course. the court could De COM
posed OF only five members. In tnat case thc
ma iority would be senior 70 AdniraI Meade Eus
should he object to any member. ana MS opJec.
lion no sustained a serious complication would
arise. -. 1850
There are n number of other points that come
nm in connection with the possible trial ot Az.
miral Meade all Of which tend 10 show tnat II
no Is brought before a cOurt-nartla IL - iuce-
tionahIe Il conviction would result. ,esiuess
while the Admirais offence is grave. looked az
W. ~ r,a++sr Of discipline. his remarks 10 The
Tr,huna renorter were not official. a story cur
.ar, bera tonight is that the President VIII
nrnish ,he Admiral by Withholding authority tor
him 70 retire and by Ike ping him unemployed.