Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-10-26
WAS REpUCEp TO RANKS.

battalion drills on May aist and Ath and
June 18th.
WAS REDUCED TO RANKS.
Captain shackelford stated that Hart
man had held the Office Of corporal in
Company c. but he (Shackelforc) had re-
auested his reduction to ranks on July
9TH for negligence of duty on July 6tn.
This request was granted and orders
were issued by Colonel Jones on July nth
reducing Corporal Hartman to the ranks.
Touching the charge that the accused
had been mutinous and used language UNI
becoming soldier, the witness was able
to give no evidence OF his own know
ledge.
letter OF June 18th from Captain
shackelford 20 Corporal Hartman. asking
for reasons for his continued absence
from drills. was read. with curt reply
from Hartman. In which he stated that
he could not be present at a meeting OF
officers and non-commissloned officers
that he was ordered TO attend because he
had made arrangements TO go to Rich
mond College to hear Mercers final ora
ton.
Another long letter was read from the
accused to his commandant OF some
what discursive and sensational nature
Cross-questioned by Mr.. Folkes, Captain
Shackelford said that he had recon-
mended that Hartman should be raised
from the ranks to the rank of corporal
because he and his lieutenants had con-
suited and arrived at the conclusion that
his interest In his company might be
stimulated by the honor. MIR. Folkes de-
veloped the fact that for some time
prior to MIR. Hartnians appointment as
corporal he had been absent from drills
two-thirds Of the time. Mr.. Folkes asked
If Captain Shackelford had notified Cor
poral Hartman Of his reduction TO ranks,
and the witness replied that he had not
had time TO do so.
The Judge-Advocate entered an obiec
ton to this question on the ground that
tho Coloneps order was sufficient. Mr..
Folkes urged his point that Hartman
had never been officially notified Of the
fact that he had been reduced to ranks.
CAPTAIN Shackelford said that n was
positive that he had told the accused
over the telephone on the day before the
ipsnection that he would not be allowed
10 wear his corporal's uniform, as he no
longer held that Office. He had also
announced to his company that Hart
man had been reduced 10 ranks.
PRESSED FOR DIRECT ANSWER.
Mr.. Folkes pressed the witness as to
this last statement, and there was some
lively fencing around the point untn the
Iudge-Adyocate objected TO the line OF
questioning that Mr.. Folkes was pursu-
Ing as irrelevant. Mr.. Fokes replied to
the objection, and said that the witness
was irving TO beg the question. lie
asked that the witness should give
direct reply to the question, When was
The order read 10 the company? Coun-
sci said he wished to prove that accused
had never been notified that he mad been
reduced 10 the ranks The president OF
t,,o court stated that that point was not
material. as the order OF the commando
ant ~ the regiment was all sufficient
Questioned as 10 Z, disrespectful IAN
orsge Captain Shackelford cited two
Occasions when Hartman had answered
his questions IN a manner unbecomlng a
subordinate. In reply TO a question put
nv Mr.. Folkes. Captain shackeltoru ne-
MED that he had ever used Language 10
wards the accused that was unbeeoming
an officer ,.,.,,..
AT this point Captain Gray Bossieux
moved that the court should adjourn
until $40 o'clock tonight. when the case
viii proceed. and charges against other
members of Company will be heard