Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1899-02-16
ONLY A BREACH OF MILITARY DIS.
CIPLINE.

A good many papers are criticizing
the President on account of what they
call his leniency to Gen. Eagan in the
| communication of his sentence from dis
missal from the army, to relieving him
from duty for six years, at which time
| under the law he would be retired In
order that We may have a fair and
clear view and understanding of the
| case we must see what Gen. Eagan'f
offense was. The offense has been
COMPOUNDED with the charge made
against Gen. Eagan by Gen. Miles
about the embalmed beef. Gen. Miles
said Gen. Eagan fed embalmed beef tC
the army. Gen. Eagan said Gen
| Miles was liar, he had done no such
thing. Now the offense for which
Gen. Eagan was tried was not foI
feeding bad beef to the soldiers, but
| for calling Gen. Miles a liar. Had
Gen. Eagan fed bad beef knowingly,
Intentionally, or carelessIy, no punish.
ment could be too severe, but that is
question not in this case The case
against him was for breach of disci-
pline, for conduct unbecoming sub
ordinate to superior officer. that con-
duct being his Characterization of
Gen. Miles, when he Gen. Eagap
was on the witness stand. There Was
no doubt that he used the language
charged, there was no doubt that he
had committed thereby such breach
of military dicipline as compelled the
court martial to find only one verdict,
and that was guilty-not guilty of
giving the boys bad meat, but guilty
of gross breach Of military discipline
and he therefore must be dismissed
But the court recommended clemency.
Now we come to look at the case as it
came before the President. What
must be done to Eagan for calling
Miles liar thereby breaking the rules
of military dicipline? Was it a very
grave offense to call Gen. Miles by a
few uncomplimentary names. The
President thought not. In absolute
monarchies men are shot for these
offenses. Should any soldier dare call
the Gar liar he would be riddled
with bullets or chopped to hash with
bayonets. We live under different
laws. But is calling Gen. Miles a litr
such a grave offense that man
equally as respectable, with equally as
clean if not little cleaner escutcheon,
should be impaled for it and made die
a slow death? Does any Southern
man knowing how brutal Gen. Miles
was to President Davis when he was
his prisoner at Fortress Monroe, and
how rude and vulgar he was to Mrs. |
Davis when she spoke to him about the
weak and delicate condition of her
husband, feel sorry for any indignity
that could be heaped by an old Union |
soldier on Gen. Miles? Does any
Southern man desire that Gen Eagan |
who has had the boldness to say what |
his opinion of Gen. Miles is and to |
give biograp hical sketch of that gem
tleman, couched in language peculiar |
10 Gen. Eagan, it is true, more forcible |
than elegant, be punished with a very
severe, grinding and humiliating pun
We think not The critj-
,ism Of the President's action in this
natter ought to find no echo in South /
I'm hearts, and we think when the real
,ffense Of Gen. Eagan is understood
clearly it will find no sympathy with
most fair minded people. Personally
We believe Gen. Eagan fed the army
admirably, personally we have shed
10 tears over those impolite express
ions to Gen. Miles which for Gen. |
Gagan is now suffering. Gen. Eagan's
ffense is not moral, ii is purely mill
airy, and whilst military laws are ex
citing they are not so fixed that there
lay not be lieniency shown If the
fense were moral the President
hight be open to criticism. Had Gen
agan stolen 100000 from the gov |
as did Lieut.. Carter, or had /
been guilty of any disgsaciug Or
email crime, then he might have been {
verely dealt with, but he is not I
'nvict in any sense, and the President l
regarded it. Hence his clemency in {
e case. n
/