The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-01-28

law, was called. He came to Washing
ton after Gen. Miles hadS given his tes-
timony and lived at the generals house.
He said he then observed that Gen.
Eagan was very restless and nervous
and could not eat or sleep normally. At
the table he at times would stop eating
and apparently lose himself in thought.
Witness had long talks with his wife
about her father and he had told her
and her mother that he must be care
fully watched and that they must be
prepared for anything.
Gen. Eagan, the witn--.s added was
in a gloomy frame of mind, in conse-
quence of the things that had been
said about him. He felt that his honor
was destroyed, and that he did not
want to see people Gen. Eagan, wit
ness further testified, did not want to
go into a street car, and was ashamed
to meet any one and keenly felt his
disgrace. The general felt that Gen.
Miles had destroyed his honor and that
his life work was destroyed
Mrs. Hopkins, the daughter of Gen.
Eagan, was the next witness. Gen. Ea-
gan's counsel explained that he called
her against the wish of her father and
husband, only because her absence
from the trial might be remarked upon.
She said her father came home one af-
ternoon, and standing in the doorway
with a paper in his hand, exclaimed:
Gen. Miles has crucified mel" She
could never forget that scene, and said
that since that time her father had
been a greatly changed man.
He was from that time in an alarm
ing condition, and when witness was
compelled to go to New York she had
returned almost at once to help care
for her father. Mr.. Worthington at
this point read Gen. Eagans military
record from the army register and also
read an interview with Gen. Miles
printed in New York newspaper soon
after he had made mis- statement to the
war commission, at the conclusion of
which the defense rested its case. At
lilo a recess was taken.
Mr.. Worthington, after the recess, be-
gan the argument for the accused,
opening by saying that he contended
that by the law of this country, civil
criminal or military, the defendant
could not be called to account for
what was said before the war investi-
eating commission. He quoted from
a number of high authorities to show
that if the words spoken were peril
nent and material 20 the case in hand
and were not objected to by the tribu
nal hearing the same and were not
malicious in character the witness
could not be held aaswerable.
The remedy, said Mr. Worthington,
lies with the tribunal before which Gen.
Eagan gave his testimony. If he had
been told by that commission that his
language was exaggerated and mad
missable he would have withdrawn his
words at once; but ct this late day to
call him to an account was, said Mr.
Worthington, unfair and unwarranted
by law. Counsel then called attention
to the presidents public statement that
witnesses were given immunity and de-
clared that this guaranty was claimed
by the accused. Under these circum-
stances he believed Gen. Eagan was
perfectly protested against any results
such as had been forced upon him by
this court. He had been accused of
heinouS crime and in his statement to
the investigating commission had ue-
Tended his honor and innocence as he
had a perfect right to do, but using
stronger language, perhaps, than he
should have used.
Mr.. Worthington next quoted from
authorities to show that to convict the
accused of conduct unbecoming an offl-
Ger and a gentleman the offence must
be such that any brother officer who
should, after his conviction, take him
by the hand or visit his home, or be on
intimate terms with him, would himself
be disgraced thereby and render him
self unfit to associate with gentlemen
and men of honor.
Counsel then reviewed the statement
made by Gen. Miles and characterized
it as without parallel in the history of
the country. He commented upon the
statement that Gen. Miles pretended to
have known about the so-called beef
frauds for three months before he had
sprung them upon the country in his
testimony before the war investigating
commission. During that time, said
counsel, Gen. Miles had not commune
Gated the alleged facts to the RESPONSE
BILE officers nor taken any steps to put
stop to them.
In concluding his address, Mr.. Wor-
Ellington made a strong plea, asserting
that through this whole controversy he
had conducted himself as an honest
man goaded to desperation by the cruel
and unjust accusations of his superior
officer.
Col. Davis, the judge advocate, closed
the argument. He said that he had Ia
other idea from the beginning than that
all facts and the whole truth in this
case be brought out. He said that if
the accused thought himself aggrieved
by the statement of Gen. Miles he had
a positive and sure remedy. He had a
right to demand a court of inquiry and
he also had the undoubted remedy of
resort to civil and criminal law. But he
saw fit to ignore all these remedies and
to take the matter in his own hands He
had prepared with celebration a state
ment which he had read before the war
commission, which was grossly insult
ng and an undoubted infraction of the
army regulations, as charged
On the question of immunity, the
Judge advocate stated that in all courts
me language, in order to be privileged,
must be pertinent to the issue; 1t can
not be slanderous or in violation of
military regulations. This was the uni
versal rule The war investigating COM
mission, which had been created by the
order OF the president, was an informal
tribunal, necessarily so by reason of the
great scope given to its investigation,
and 1t was not such a tribunal as could