The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-08-29
CAPT. CARRIERS DEFENCE.
s,vS HE rs INNOCENT AND ASKS
FOR JURY TRIAL.

c,r, TO Deal With Such \ Case.
r.,,u,xoros. Aug 2s-The brief prepared
- W,vne Mcveagh on the case OF Cant. Ober-
W. II carter has become public. Mr.. McVeagh
,.onared the brief before going to Europe.
uh the purpose that 1t should be submitted
-, Attorney General Griggs in case Mr.. driRgs
,bouId desire to carry the case to a conclusion
ho,,re Mr. Mcveagh's return Although the
h.io,bas been submitted with that understand
ING. il ia said that the Acknowledgement has
.arood that no decision shall be reached until
Mr. McNeagh shall have maoe an oral arRu-
mani before closing the case.
Tho brief ia a pamphlet OF ninety octave
.,o. Mr.. Mcvcagh begins with emphatic
depials that the friends and counsel OF Capt
carter we're pleading with tho President for
mercy No person. he says. speaking on be-
b,r NJ Capt Carte :. has ever appealed to the
prssident or any che else for mercy for him.
7, ras not mercy pat the recognition OF his
,rnorence they demanded Mr.. McVeagh de-
riea with equal heat that any attempt has been
made to delay or smother consideration OF the
case He calls attention to his own represen-
,,tion. as Capt. Carters counsel. to the Presi-
dont and Secretary OF War that the most salts
factory way to dispose Of the case would be to
mt /, leiore a Judge and jury. Thirdly Mr..
Mcyeagh repudiates the newspaper intima-
Aims that the President has been DESTROYS OF
obielding Cant Carter. The only questions the
president has ever asked regarding the case,
he says, arc: Was Capt Carter's trial con-
ducted in accordance with law. and: Is he
innocent or guilty.
With regard to the competency OF court
martial to try such a case as that OF Capt. Car
ter. the brief says:
"A plain man seeking truth would. think.
Inevitably conclude that this alleged heinous
crime, in its magnitude and gravity. involving
AZ Il did two great contracts and the improve
ment OF two important harbors OF the nation,
and involving far more than life to those ac-
oused OF it, was sufficient to tax the capacity OF
tho most competent court. even II trained to
hear and decide such important and far
reaching controversies.
Il need not dwell upon the general incom-
petence OF detail OF officers selected ad hoe
by the Secretary Of War to deal with such ques-
tons 1t is no derogation from the character
Of military officer TO say that his training
distinctly disqualifes him to deal with impor-
taut questions OF law and fact involving large
sums 81 money and presenting complicated
and difficult questions of evidence such as are
50 frequently presented In the voluminous
record Of this case. Indeed. it Is not stating
the case too strongly to say that 1t would not
be easy to select an equal number OF high
less competent to deal with the propositions
this case presents
Mr. McVeagh charges that along with the
serious accusations that Capt Carter conspired
with Government contractors to rob the United
States Of 1919. 74a 30 in July. 1897 lot OF con-
fusng and petty accusations have been dragged
into the ease with the object Of misleading the
court martial. 1T has certainly the look" he
says. of having been done with the sole pur-
pose OF confusing the minds OF the officers
detailed to try tho case. and prejudcng
them against Capt. Carter when consid-
erng the grave and important crime first
charged against him. for II is we'll known that
no tramp arrested upon the highway could be
tried at the same time for two such wholly diff
ferent offences. and for the simple reason that
any such joining OF offences has always been
known to be likely to result in a miscarriage
ofIustice."
To this Is added the comment that most OF
these specified trivial charges were barred
by the statute Of limitations. II would have
been almost impossible for Capt Carter to
disprove them after the lapse Of time since
they were said to have occurred and the
statute was pleaded. Why" asks Mr. Nc
Veagh. should prosecutor indict an off,
GER for offences which the pros
ecutor knew he was not required to
answer,unless it was TO prejudice the mem ers
OF the court by requiring the defendant to
plead the statute? And this view presses more
heavily uron the mind. when it is remembered
that the ingenuity Of Capt Carter's prosecutors
required him TO plead the statute OF limita-
tions not once or twice only. but sixteen times
/ cannot doubt that when Capt. Carter had for
the sixteenth time raised the bar OF the statute
between his conduct and inquiry into 1t pre-
vious to Dec. 1900 majority Of those officers
had already decided that he was a guilty man."
After simplifying instances In support OF this
position. McVeagh points out that though
these charges were barred by the statute,
evidence relating to Thorn was unanimously
introduced.
In his analysis OF the testimony offered in
the case. Mr.. McVeagh dwells at length on the
effort OF the prosecution to prove that the con-
tractors for the work in Savannah harbor
made tremendous profits. as II such proof wero
conclusive evidence Of a corrupt conspiracy
The prosecution diligently strove to pass over.
he says.the showing OF department records that
the contractors bids recommended by Capt
Carter were lower than the average price paid
for similar work on twenty-one contracts In
neighboring districts The credibility OF the
prosecutions principal witnesses 10 attacked
In detail by the brief. Their testimony. Mr..
MacVeagh says. would be ridiculous were 1t
not in such grave cause. Extracts from the
testimony of one Of the witnesses are used to
chow that the witness is not only q perjurer
but an embezzler.
The Selling Of Capt. Carriers private papers.
the handling Of them by the members OF the
court and by other persons and the refusal to
allow the defence make use OF such Of them as
would tend to prove its case. Mr. MoVeagh says.
were actions SO utterly unexcusablc and illegal
that il is hard FOR him to review them calmly.
TIL" brief is filed with strictures on the con-
duct Of the Assistant Judge Advocate General.
Col Thos F. Barr OF which the following is an
example:
On page 973 10 to be found an astonishing
statement by the Assistant Judge Advocate
General and an astonishing proceeding on his
part. He calls the attention Of the officers try
ing the case to an alleged forgery OF the name
OF Edward IL Gaynor, saying I desire to pass
these vouchers to each member Of the court.
The signatures appear so entirely different |
would like to have you examine them, There
are two OF them
In other words. trying Capt Carter for
criminal conspiracy with the contractors in
1895. lie offers his own judgment as to the for
gerry of the signatures OF Edward II Gaynor