Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-09-09

file case. The senior officer Col Gfllespie)
gave instructions to have the Grating re-
moved and the case transferred to the
board room. 1t was done, and the key to
1t given to that officer by the accused, with
permission for the board to examine its
contents. as the following extract from a
letter written by him to the board shows:
1 have such confidence. in the members
of the examining board that l unreservedly
place myself in your hands and shall be
glad to deliver to you the keys to the only
case which [ believe is locked, and l give
you full authority privately to open it and
examine all the contents, If there be things
there which. in your judgment, need ex-
PLANTATION, please request such
This action on the part of the accused
d1Ves-ed these papers of the character
of secrecy He submitted them to a quasi
judicial board. which made a partial basis
TOR its official Judgment, and then trans
terred them as 1t was its bounden duty to
do to the officer designated by the Presi-
dent to prosecute the accused.
No agreement as to Examination.
There had been no reply from the board
to the letter of the accused and no agree
ment as to what papers should be exam
lned and what not to be examined. Nor
was there any agreement entered into to
return the books and papers at any time
Had there been it could not have changed
their status before the court. The facts
as above recited are established by in
dubltaple proof. The contention is made,
however, that no matter now the books and
papers into the possession of the
judge advocate, The court could not take
coSnzance OF how they were obtained law
funny or unIaHIu!Iy. If the constitutional
rights OF the accused had been VIolaled ne
nad las remedy against those who mad
EIo4dttG tnCIl. he rue, us stated above,
Was I1iu Gown in Eiis tnu as carry as 1888,
IN Inc case OF Lewis. and
lowed IL the case oI LegSett VS.. IulIervey
IA last, uoV2J ana III subsequent decisions.
In The United safes the same question
came before The supreme court OF Massa-
cnusellS III the case OF Commonwealth VS.
Dana ia Met, "Z,J. The OPINION IN TINS
case vas deiiVered ny Justice Wide at the
N&rGl term OF the court IN ISL. The Dues
uoh 81 tie Illegal Seizure Of matter put in
evidence vas an issue. The following is
a4u extract.
ltemedy for the Accused,
II the search warrant were illegal or if
the officer serving the warrant exceeded
his authority, the party on whose COM
plant the warrant issued, the officer,
would be responsible for the wrong done;
but this is no good reason for excluding
the papers seized evidence, if they were
pertinent to the issue as they unquestion-
ably were. When papers We're offered in
evidence the court can take no notice how
they were contained, whether lawfully or
unlawfully, nor would they form a colat-
eral issue to determine that question:
The decision cites the English precedent
above noted. This entire question was
fully discussed by the judge advocate in
his closing argument, he having in view
the constant claim of counsel and desiring
TO give the reviewing authority the reason
ing of eminent jurists upon it. 1t will be
found therein that the inapplicablity of the
OPINION OF the Supreme Court in the BOEd
case to the question in issue has been de-
cided in numerous instances, and numerous
authorities will be found cited to maintain
the contention of the judge advocate"