The times., 1899-10-05
PLEADING CARRIERS CASE
The Habeas Corpus Proceedings /,
New York,

The Habeas Corpus Proceedings in
New York.
! NEW YORK, Oct. 4-The hearing on tho
! writ of habeas corpus for the production in
court of former Capt Oberlin NJ. Carter
sentenced By court martial to fine, i'm
prisonment and degradation. came up he
fore Judge Lacombe in the United States
Circuit Court to-day Carter whose counsel
hoids that his sentence TO fine and imprison-
ment is illegal, was brought into court in
charge of Captain Roberts and an artillery
corporal
! The argument of Abram J. Rose counsel
I for Carter, was that the four counts on
which Carter had bsen convicted were prac-
tically one, being all based on the alleca-
tion that he had caused money to be paid
out on Government contracts upon ficti-
tious and fraudulent accounts The four
counts were: Conspiracy to defraud. caus
ing fraudulent claims to be made out coz
duct unbecoming an officer, and embezzle-
ment. Mr.. Rose stated that by the Articles
of War, under article 60 the court-martial
can fine or imprison, or infiict such other
punishment (other than fine or mprison-
menD as it may adjudge. but cannot both
I fine and imprison In addition, article 100
provides that, when an officer is dismissed
from the service for cowardice or fraud.
the sentence shall further direct that the
crime, punishment, name, and place OF
abode of the delinquent shall be published
in the newspapers in and about the camp
and in the State from which the offender
came, or where he usually resides; ana,
after such publication 1t shall be scan
dalous for an officer TO associate with him."
Article 81, said Mr.. Rose, provides that
lf sN4Jf
ing an officer and a gentlemen ssal he
dismissed from the service Article 81 re-
lates TO all crimes not capital, and all dis
orders and neglects which officers and SOL
diers may be guilty of to the prejudice OF
| good order and military discipline, mot
mentioned in any foregoing article of
war" which are punishable at the discre-
ton of the court. Mr.. Rose then made the
point that the embezzlement charged in
the complaint, as covered by article 81. was
specifically described in article 60, and thai
article 81 plainly related only to offences
mot mentioned in any of the foregoing ar
tcles of war" Admitting the conclusions
of the court martial to be correct, the
counsel argued, that body had authority to
dismiss from the service under, article 61
to degrade under article 1G0 and to fine or
to imprison under article so, but not boti
to fine and to imprison, as has been done
here.
Colonel Clous, Judge Advocate General
CT the Department of the East began his
reply with a .eulogy upon the character
and ability of the officers composing the
Carter court martial. Judge Laconlbe cut
short the remarks Of the Judge Advocate
General with the remark that nobody 0nes-
toned the standing OF the rt-martial.
Colonel Clous brought in great number
Of authorities on military law and usage
among the decisions OF the Supreme Court
to the effect that military court is not
liable to civil courts on questions CT judg-
ment nor are its errors renewable by
civil court. For century. he said, Aneri-
can military courts had imposed sentence
as a whole, not specifically in accordance
with the separate counts OF the indictment.
This practice We derived from English
army usage. The prisoner had been found
guilty of four separate offences, and PEN
atty could be imposed for each. Article
62, under which he had been convicted of
embezziement, provided for both fine and
imprisonment.
Mr.. Rose here interposed to say that il
such practice be wrong it could not be
binding on the court. He asked how the
prisoner, if he served the penal sentence
imposed upon him in accordance with ar
ticle 81, could be secure from another trial
under the provisions of article so. Judge
Lacombe took the briefs and reserved de-
cision.
Officials of the War Department admitted
yesterday that the contracts with the At
lantic Contracting Company entered into
by former Captain Carter for the improve
ment of the harbor at Savannah. Ga, and
Cumberland Sound, Fla, have been can
celed by direction of the Secretary OF
War.
Orders were sent to Captain Gillette at
Savannah on Monday to cancel the con-
tracts, and these orders were promptly
obeyed At this time the Chief OF the
Engineer Corps was in New York with the
Dewey reception committee. He had pre-
pared all the papers in the case a year be-
fore, however, and forwarded them to Sec
retary Alger, at that time asking for di-
rections regarding the contracts. Work
on the improvements was suspended in
October, 1897, and the Chief of Engineers
wanted to know if the work should be
continued or the contracts annulled. The
papers were referred to the Attorney Gen
eral and the matter of the contracts held
in allegiance until his decision in the case
of Carter Attorney General Griggs in his
opinion recommended that the contracts
be annulled and this action was taken.
The officers in charge of the work at
Cumberland Sound and Savannah have
been directed to prepare specifications and
plans for a continuation of the improve
ments. These plans will probably reach
the War Department in a few days for ap-
proval. and as soon as approved bids will
be invited anew for the work. The ques-
tion Of the prosecution of the Gaynors and
other members Of the Atlantic Contracting
Company was referred to the Attorney
General in the papers submitted about the
contracts, His attention was invited to
the evidence on hand and further pro-
ceedings will depend entirely upon his
view of the case.
ST. FRANCIS OF AsSISSI.
Dominicans Celebrate the Anniyer-
sary of His Death.