Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-10-06
THE CARTER DECISION
Judgment Of CouIt-MaTtia| in
Ex-Captaiin's Case
OPINION OF Mr., GRIGGS,
Reasons for Concluding That Sentence
Mas Justified.
THE MOTIVES FOR REGULATION.
Rapid Increase of the Disgrnced
Officers Personal Expenditures
THE MOTIVES FOR REGULATION

| WASHINGTON, OCTOBER Tine opinion
Of Attorney General Griggs In the case Of
Captain Oberlin NJ. Carter, OF the army,
upon which the President approved the
finding OF the court-martial, was made
public to-day
After dismissing certain OF the minor
charges as improved the Attorney-Gene-
raj takes up the more serious questions
! involved first considering the objection
| that the charges upon which Captain Car
ter was found guilty were incongruous.
! lie says that unlike the ordinary crimi-
nal procedure. the military usage and
procedure permit Of an indefinite number
of offences being charged and adjudicated
| together in one and the same proceeding.
1T is not necessary" he says, ''to dis
cuss whether this practice is wise, or
whether it is prejudicial to the rights Of
! the accused. il appears to be established
/ by long continued practice. and, so far as
! L am able on investigation TO discover
without previous challenge" But, il we'll
! founded. the Acknowledgement says, he
does not think the accused should be al
lo.ged TO avail himself Of the objection
now, because he proceeded TO trial with
out objection Of this alleged misenjoyer,
permitted the court to enter all Of the
specifications, and himself brought for
ward his defence as to each of them. The
objection should have been promptly
taken. to be made available.
EVIDENCE ALLEGEDLY BARRED.
The objection concerning the admission
Of evidence barred by the statute of
/ limitations is disposed Of by saying that
! this evidence was not offered "for the
purpose of proving against the accused
/ the particular offence as 10 which he had
! interposed this protective plea, nor Of
having him declared guilty thereof, but
| for the purpose OF showing the relation
| between the accused and the other al
Legged conspirators, the intent and motive
OF the accused and the other alleged con-
/ spiratOrs. and their course and conduct
/ with reference TO matters OF q nature
similar to those, and in many respects
connected with those, involved in the
| transaction under trial" For this pur-
pose he thinks the evidence was admissi-
| bio.
! other objections relating 10 the admis-
sion of evidence Of conversations and acts
of alleged co-conspirators antedeting the
time OF the particular conspiracy charged,
he also thinks were admissible.
! SEIZURE OF PRIVATE PAPERS.
Referring to the seizure Of the private
papers of captain Carter. Mr.. Griggs says
that the facts DO not show that the seiZ-
ure was unreasonable, and Carter espe-
| ciallv consented to the use made Of the
papers. The point IS made in this con-
nection that even in the absence of such
! consent IL was not incompetent 10 offer
| the papers as evidence. The use of let
/ ter written by the witness Cooper 10 Cap
tain Gillette is condemned but il is ar
gued that the letter did rot injure Garter.
The Att0rney-General also finds that
the court did not err in refusing evidence
offered 10y Carter, including the letter OF
his fatber-in-law, VI. +. Wescott. This
brings the inquiry To the evidence IN the
main charges on which the objection was
made.
Summing up many Of the specifications,
including Captain Carriers intimacy with
| Greene and the Gaynors. the method OF
advertising for the work and Of letting
| the contracts. the character of the At
| lantic Contracting Company the large
| urodts made on the contracts, etc, the
| Aforementioned says that they might
| Justly be considered as failing 10 fix upon
| the accused criminal knowledge, and pur-
nose to defraud the government, If Il
were shown that he had no corrupt per-
! sonal motive, and that he had not proiited
bv these loose methods and Irregular and
| questionable proceedings.
MOTIVES FOR REGULATION.
lie then proceeds to the investigation
Of these motives lie shows that in 1891
the Captains salary was only $2oZ per
month. and that from that time for
ward his personal expenditures increased
very RAPIDLY. being S6,0H in 1891. and &9,6ll
in 1886 The fact is also pointed out that
I'm 1892 Captain Carter began TO make
Notably large deposits with the Union
,rruet Company of New York, and also
10 buv investment securities, these IN
creasing until 1890, when his holdings mad
increased to a market value Of Si63'Vo.
Mr. Griggs does not accept Captain
Carter's explanation that he was dealing
i'm the securities with the funds Of MS
father-in-law, Mr.. Wescott and he was
The recipient Of large presents from
him.
unavoidable story and II was incumbcnl
mon him. for his own protection, TO sus'
tain IL By all attainable testimony.
WESCNfII lJlJ MI is' III l.
Speaking further on this point, the At
torneyNGeneral says: IF Mr. Nescou'
tho alleged donor, had come upon the
vyitness-stand and corroborated the story
il would probably have been sufficient,
hut he aid not come. 1t is contended, on
behalf OF Captain Carter, that Wescott
v,ae at the time Of the trial IN Europe,
vritb a sick daughter. and was In ner-
! ,ous state himself so that he naturally
shrank from the annoyance and trouble
"a which he would be subjected by com
inc home 10 testify in his son-in-law's be
bolf The evidence as 10 the ill-health OF
his daughter, and his own condition OF
| nervousness, is very sparse, and cannon
be deemed satisfactory. The letter which
Mr. Wescott sent 10 Captain Carter,
wherein he declined TO appear before the
Board Of Inquiry in the fall OF 1877. does
not put his refusal upon either OF these
grounds but rather upon the ground that
his testimony was unmportant ana coulu
DO supplied in other ways.
III IT be true. as contended, thar MT
Wescott had such an extravagant anec-
lion and regard for his son-in law as "a
induce him to conhde 10 him so great .
trust. and to make him the donee or such
large sums OF money. then the halur"