The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-10-26

Chief
THE HARTMAN CASE.
After recess the Judge-AdvOcatc call
cd UP the case against Private J. II.
| Hartman. Of Company g. who was repre-
scented by Mr. Mlnetree Folkcs as coun-
sell lie then read the orders calling to-
/ ccthcr the court and stated that Captain
| w S. j. Mayo had been challenged by
| the Judgc-Advocate and was no longer a
/ member Of the court. Captain Shackel-
1 ford was also challenged by the Judge
| Advocate. being an important witness.
| Both challenges were sustained by the
court
The charges and specifications against
private Hartman were then read by the
Judge Advocate. which were as follows:
Charge ]; Disobediencc OF orders In vio-
laton or the 2lst Article Of War.
Specification l. In this that Private J.
| II. Hartmann OF Company c.. First In
| fantry. Virginia Volunteers. having re-
ceived lawful order from his superior
| officer Captain George +. Shackelford.
| First Virginia Infantry. 10 put on his uni
| form and 10 report 10 his company for in
| spectlon by the Assistant Inspector Cen
/ erai Of the First Brigade Virginia Volun-
| toers did refuse TO obey and did dsobey
| the same This az the Armory Of the
| First Regiment Virginia Volunteers, on
| the evening Of September 10Th. 1897.
Specification 2: In this, that the said
| Private Hartman. Company G, First In
| fantry, Virginia Volunteers. having been
/ placed In arrest by his commanding Off
| Ger, Captain George T.. Shackelford. First
/ Virginia Infantry. and having been or
dered by him Captain Shackelford) to
remain I'm his company's quarters. did
violate and disobey said order This at
| the Armory OF the First Regiment, on
| September 10Th. 1897.
| Charge II. Absence from company rem
devious I'm violation of the SD Article
Of War
THE SPECIFICATIONS.
Specification 1: In this, that Private
] Hartman. Company G, First Infantry. did
fail to report at the time fixed 10 the
place Of rendezvous appointed by
| the commanding officer of his COM
pany. not being prevented by sickness or
other necessity on the following dates:
April 9Th, 18th, 18th May 3d.. nth. June
2lst 2sth. August 9th. 18th. sd. Both. and
on September 18Th. all of the above dates
being in the year 1897 and being the dates
for which regular company drills were
APPOINTED Also on May DIST. oath, and
June 18th. 1897. these being the dates for
which Battalion drills were appointed. in
which his company was ordered TO parti-
clpatc. and also on June 18th, which was
the date appointed for a drill of the First
| Regiment. to all of which the said Pri-
vate Hartman was ordered TO repair
| Charge III: Conduct 10 the prejudice OF
good order and military discipline in vio-
| lation Of the sd Article OF War.
Specification I: That Private J. IT,.
| Hartman, Company G. First Regiment
| Virginia Volunteers, did on or about the
9th day Of August 1897. and the 4th day
| Of October 1897. in various conversations
| on said dates give utterance to language
| unbecOming a soldier, mutnous and de-
| trimental TO military discipline, and that,
between the dates above mentioned. his
manner and attitude expressed and i'm
| piled. was such as TO set a bad example
| to the enlisted men Of the Virginia Voun-
teers. and prejudicial to the good order
and military discipline Of the same.
PLEADED NOT GUILTY.
The accused then pleaded not guilty to
all the charges and specifications.
! Captain Shackelford then was called as
| the first witness and stated that he knew
| the accused. who was a private of his
| company. he was not enlisted by him, but
| the record showed that he was enlisted
1 hv Captain II. l.. Watson on January Is,
| 1893 His company was Inspected on NO
| vember 10Th. The accused received an
| order 10 report to his company on that
| occasion The order was like the others,
sent to him
The accused was at the Regmental Ar
mory on Tint evening i'm citizens dress.
| The day prior to the inspection / had a
/ telephone message from him. asking
whether he would have To wear his uni
| form as private or be allowed 10 wear
| the corporals uniform. / replied that he
would have to wear a private's uniform.
! inasmuch as he had recently been reduc-
! ed 10 ranks.
on the evening OF the inspection, con-
| tinued witness. / found him leaving the
| companys room and he told me that he
would not attend the inspection if he was
to wear "a prvate's uniform. / ordered
| him 90 put on his uniform, but he de-
| clineG to do so. whereupon / placed him
| under arrest and told him to remain IN
| the company's room, while / went 20
headquarters TO discuss the matter with
the Lieutenant Colonel, who was in COM
mand Of the regiment.
! Upon my return TO the cOmTany's room
] was informed that the accused had left
! the ROOM and ] sent the First Lieuten-
| ant after him. He was found in the up
| per hall. but did not wait to hear what
| reason he gave as to his leaving the COM
| pany room.
HE WAS ABSENT
Witness stated that the accused was
| absent from drill on the dates mentioned
| i'm the specifications TO his certain knOwl-
| edge. with the exception Of August 9Th,
when witness was absent himself He
had been properly notified TO be present.
The accused was formally a corporal,
but for failing to attend drills more reg
ularly, witness requested early in July
| that ne be reduced to ranks for negli-
gence of duty and an order 20 that effect
was subsequently issued by the Colonel Of
the Regiment.
Among the several letters read out In
court by the witness was one written
| by the accused on July 18th. which show
cd his inclination TO leave the service. Up
| TO eighteen months ago his record had
been one Of the best but since then 1t
! had not been good and he had shown q.
! disposition OF being insubordinate.
! ON cross-cxamination by Mr. Folkes,
/ witness stated that the accused had been
| promoted TO the rank Of corporal on Au-
| gust j. 1896 He thought that the ap-
pointment would induce him to take
| better interest in the service He was
| then a good enot gh soldier 10 give him 4
/ trial as a corporal. He did not have
I AN opportunity TO notify the accused OF
! his reduction to ranks before he learned
h himself. But the accused admitted in
bis letter to witness. that he knew of his
! reduction. lie informed the Company
OF his reduction as soon as practicable.
Mr. Folkes stated TO the court that he
endcavoTed TO show that the accused had