New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-10-20
FOR PRITATES IN THE ARHf'
ANOTHER HAMMOND CASE. REsEMBLN" the
ONE AT FORT SHERIDAN

ANOTHER HAMMOND CASE REsEMBLlN" THE
ONE AT FORT SHERIDAN.
Uash,Drton oct. 10 (speciaD-The Army has
another Hammond case differing only In degree
from that NJ Fort Sheridan. ILL.,. for wh'ch '"P."''
Lowering Is to so before court OF inquiry ne
War Department has just learned OF Il case VIM.
demonstrates the growing dispositicn among ON
GER. of high rank to frown on the uf"a''a"'eu
persecution Of enlisted men, so common d,,o"e
yo,nror officers who aspire 10 fame as rlGid olsci-
nlinar,ans and who administer punishment pima
folded 1t appears from the record 'hat i'N"'7
LLOYD NJ Hammond. Troop G. fh cavalry was
brought before a general court-mariiai az for'
Walla Wala. Wash. OF when MhJor houI' IL
Rucke was president and Second Lieutenant James
PARKER the insticator OF the charge and principal
witness for the prosecution was judge advocate
and in charge OF the prosecution. Hammond was
charged with disobediencc of orders III having WIZ
fully disobeycd" n lawful command from MS SUI
perior officer Second Lieutenant James . Iarhcr'
4th Cavalry 10 return at once to camp with ir'-
vate Harry c. Carpenter. HAMMOND. acting on me
advice probably. OF fellow-sodiers entered pea
Of guilty The court IN its finding struck out the
word "wiliully" and sentenced him 10 two months
hard labor under the post guard. and to FORFEIT 'o
a month.
Rrigadier- General Merriam commanding the De-
partnent Of the Columbia. promptly disapproycd
the proccodngs findings md sentence. and ordered
Hammond released from confinement and restored
TO duty In his Endorsement he declares That the
fudge advocate should have requested the court 10
have entered the plea Of not guilty. and failing IN
this the court should have done 80. General Mer-
ram Their proceeded 10 write the following cr'ti-
csm or the proceedings. which shows In remark
able manner how injustice Is frequently dispensed
under the court martial system:
1t Is apparent that the evidence docs not warrant
even n modified finding Of guilty. since everything
established by the prosecution is that ~" order
given to the accused was simply 10 return 10 camp
with Private Carpenter" and not TO return NJ
once" As ALLEGED; that ~ sl5 p. m. zone hour and
fifteen minutes lated when the camp was in
speced, tho accused was absent: and that the camp
was ak blocks. half mile from tho spot where
the order given. The accused established Ia
Carpenter. who drunk and dsorderly In the
streets Of Waitsburg at the tim" he received the
order: that lie seen during the tme testified to
by two witnesses. VINO testified that ne was Trying
to take Private Carpenter back 10 camp and by
his own uncontradcted testimony that. upon re-
ceipt OF the order he AT ono" started 10 camp with
Private Carpenter directed; that he continuously
endeayorcd n return with him until about '@l
D. m when he succeeded and finally. that he had
no intention whatever Of disobeying the order but
remained with Private Carpenter, trying 20 get him
TO return TO camp" This certainly shows literal
compliance with the order given. and negatives any
intent the part OF the accused 10 disohey, and
no plea OF guilty can I'm Justice be permitted 10
overcome the plain meaning OF such testimony.