The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-11-30
statement as mitigating circumstances.

be carried on In a decorous manner. and
he asked that Mr.. Folkes first plead on
the various specifications.
The second specification was then read
10 which Mr.. Folkes pleaded not guilty
while he pleaded guilty 10 the third and
fourth resolutions. To the fifth resolution
his plea was not guilty. and to the sixth
guilty.
Mr. Folkes then stated that he had
pleaded guilty TO the four specifications.
and had read his statement 10 the court.
which he hoped would induce the COM
rades TO temper Justice with mercy.
Mr.. Stuart desired TO know what should
be done next. but the president was IN
able 70 decide. The Judge advocate
thought that debate was then in order
Mr.. Stuart moved that speeches be linn
| lied 10 ten minutes for each speaker TO
which Mr. Morrisett offered as n substi-
tute limit Of five minutes. The substi-
tute was seconded by Mr.. John S. Har-
WOOD. and II was then adopted.
ADOPTED FOUR PLEAS.
MI Montague moved that the court ac-
! cept the findings Of the committee on the
two specifications. on which It found Mr.
Folkes not guilty.
Mr. Chambley moved that the specinca-
tons be taken IN verbatim
Mr.. Morrisett offered as a substitute for
the whole that the four specifications 10
which Mr.. Folkes had pleaded guilty be
accepted and that the other two specifica-
| uons be taken up. The substitute was
adopted
I The second specification. charging Mr..
folkes with accepting $50. was then taken
up, TO which the finding of the court was
Not guilty"
Mr.. Montague moved that the finding OF
the committee be adopted and Mr.. Lecky
produced the evidence In the matter In de-
tan. as II has been printed in the col
umns Of The Times. He pointed out the
by his vote on the History Committee.
Mr.. Gardner said he had heard every
word Of evidence and since he had been
appointed on the committee he had been
over the evidence twice again and n was
his unqualified opinion that there was 70
evidence TO show cOnclusively that Mr.
Folkes had received $50 to defeat the res
olutiOns
Mr.. Montague thought considerable
weight should be given TO the opinion OF
the committee. who had given the matter
the most careful consideration This pro-
ceeding resembled very much that i'm
criminal court and all reasonable doubt
should be given the accused. lie was
therefore. IN favor OF the report of the
committee.
The question whether the accused was
guilty or not guilty Of the specifications
was then put 20 the court and the follow
ing members voted for not guilty:
Stanard. Gardner Barraud. Betz. Pol
lard, Gregory Eckles, Snead. Harwood
Montague. Shepherd, Hartman. Libby.
Dorset, Gayle. Parrish Angle. Pollard.
Disney. Savoy, Lacey. Bird. Tucker
Bowie. Lockwood. Peterborough. Pey-
ton. Adams. OFerrall. Libby, Ferney-
hough, Cook. Wilkes. Courtney-3i
Those who voted for guilty were:
Lecky, Spence. BOsher. Morrisett. ia
cob, Eggleston. Guigon. Stuart. Chumbley
Werth, Brander, Cox, Bennett. Strother-
The court. therefore. decided that Mr..
Fokes was not guilty.
MOVED IT'S ADOPTION
Specification No. was next read. and
Mr.. Cook moved the adoption Of the re-
port Of the committee
Mr. Lccky again took the floor and said
the evidence in the matter had been pub
lished, and he then called attention to the
iact That The secretary had given up the
resolutions 10y the direction Of the COM
mander, and they were then turned over
10 Mr. Werner. Mr.. Folkes was guilty.
and every bit of evidence proved the
charge.
Mr. Gardner. in reply, read portion
Of Mr. Foxes testimony. prefacing his
remarks that the charge Of having sworn
falsely was a very serious one. Mr..
Folkes had never sworn positively that he
had given the resolutions TO Mr.. Werner.
In order TO convict he would have TO Do
convicted from his own words.
Mr.. Stanard called attention TO the
fact that TO the last specification Mr..
Folkes had pleaded guilty. which charged
him with swearing falsely. He thought
this would have some weight with the
court
Mr. Stuart thought that the programme
10 lay the resolutions on the table was
not carried out. and that Mr. MahoOd
was not I'm the programme.
Mr.. Cook thought that Mr.. Mahood was
party 10 the programme
+ Enfppn l.. hu
the commander of the camp had asked
the acting secretary to turn over the
resolutions. and that the latter was
obliged TO obey him.
DECLARED GUILTY.
The question whether Mr.. Folkes was
guilty or not guilty was then put The
following members voted for not guilty:
Gardner Barraud, Betz Gregory,
Booker, Eckels, Hartman, Libbey, Dor
sett, Cook Parrish, Disney Savoy,
Bowie. Adams. LOckwOod-11
The following voted for guilty:
Lecky, Stanard. Pollard. GugOn.
Spence. Morrssett. Shepherd. Jacob, Eg-
gleston Chumbley. Worth. Stuart Cox.
Strother, Bird. Tucker-2l.
The court decided Mr.. Folkes TO be gull
ty Of Specification >.
The president next announced that the
camp find verdict.
Mr. Jacob moved that Mr. Folkes be-
expelled from the camp in accordance
with the findings on the specifications.
Mr.. ECkels offered the following substi-
tute:
Whereas Minetree Folkes. commander
Of X. Il. Lee Camp. No. !, c. V, has been
guilty Of acts Of great indiscretion, and
has attained an unenviable reputation
thereby. and
Whereas, the commander of this camp
should be a man OF unspotted reputation,
and,
Whereas. his conduct merits severe
punishment at the hands Of this camp
therefore be il
Resolved That the said Mne.ree FOXES
he reduced TO ranks, be reprimandad ly
the presiding officer of this camp. and be
Suspended from this camp for 'he period
OF eighteen months
Mr. Cook then arose and made an elo-
quent appeal for mercy on behalf or Mr.
Folkes and stated that he wOuli vote
for the substitute, but could not vote for
expulsion
SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY.
Mr.. Tucker offered. as substitute Tor
the whole that Mr. Fokes be suspended
until reinstated b. the camp. "" briefly
spoke i'm favor Of his substitute, and
thought il was beyond the power IF the
investigating committee 10 recommend the
expulsion OF Mr.. Folkes.
Mr. Morrissctt was Of the opinion that
the motion Of Mr.. Tucker was hardly
worthy of consideration. The evidence IN
the case had gone broadcast ever the
land.
Mr. Gardner made an eloquent appeal
I'm favor OF mercy. and asl.ed that the
resolution offered by Mr. Eckels - acopt-
ed Mr.. Stanard followed. speaking IN
favor OF the original resolution 20 eNpel
Mr. Foxes Mr.. Eckels briefly SPOKE IN
behalf Of his substitute, while VT. Sluart
advocated the expulsion If Mr. folkcs;
Mr.. Lecky asked his comraies not 10 De
by the warnings "i 'hr's'ahitH'