The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-28

recalled and said that never during their
acquaintance with the accused had they
known him TO use vulgar or profane Ian
guage.
DIR. AND MRS. HOPKINS.
Dr.. w. E. Hopkins. of California and New
York, General Eagans son-in-law, was
called. He came to Washington after Gen.
Miles had given his testimony and lived at
the generals house He said that he then
observed that General Eagan was very rest
less and nervous and could not eat normally
or sleep normally AT the table he at times
would stop eating and apparently would
lose himself in thought. He was intensely
nervous and showed signs of congestion Of
certain parts Of the brain. Witness had had
long talks with his wife about her father
and he had told her that her father must be
carefully watched and that they must be
prepared for anything. General Eagans
mind was nOnreceptiV2 at this time and the
witness believed that something very Sc
rious might happen. General Eagan, wit
ness added, was in gloomy frame Of mind
IN consequence 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. General Eagan, witness further tes-
uhed did not want to go into a street car,
and was ashamed to meet any one and
keenly felt his disgrace. The general felt
tnat General Miles had destroyed his honor
and that mis- iifework was destroyed. In all
Pagan witness had notsknown him TO use
such language as was used in his state
ments.
Mrs Hopkins, the daughter of General
Eagan was the next witness, General
Eagans counsel explaining that he called
her against the wish of her father and hus-
band and only because her absence from
The trial might be remarked upon. She said
her father came home one afternoon and
standing II the doorway with paper in mis-
hand exclaimed: General Miles has cruel
fed me- She said she could never forget
that scene and said that since that time
her father had been a greatly changed man.
He could think of nothing else nor talk Of
anything else than that General Miles had
ruined his life. He was from that time on
In an alarming condition, and when witness
was compelled to go to New York she had
returned almost at once to help care for her
father. The witness spoke with much feel
ing in regard to ner fathers changed condf-
ion, and was given the closest attention of
CLOSING ARGUMENTS.
Mr.. Worthington, at this point read Cen
sral Eagan's military record from the Army
Register, and also read an interview with
General Miles printed in New York news
paper soon after he had made his statement
before the war commission. at the conclu-
ION of which the defense rested its case
at 11:10 o'clock a recess was taken UNI
til 1890
Mr. Worthington, after recess, began the
ing that he contended that by the law of
this country, civil criminal or military the
defendant could not be called to account
Tor what he said before the war investi-
eating commission. He quoted from a num-
Der OF high authorities to show that if the
words spoken were pertinent and material
10 the case in hand and were not objected
TO by the tribunal hearing the same, and
were not malicious in character, the witness
could not be held answerable. The remedy
said Mr.. Worthington, lies with the tribunal
before which General Eagan gave his tes-
timony. II he had been told by that com
mission that his language was exaggerated
and inadmissibe he would have withdrawn
his words at once but at this late day to
call him to account was, said Mr.. Worth
ington, unfair and unwarTanted by law.
Counsel then called attention to the Presi-
dents public statement that witnesses were
given immunity and declared that TINS guar
antee was claimed by the accused. Under
these circumstances he believed General
Eagan was perfectly protected against any
results such as had been forced on him by
this court. He had been accused of hei-
nous crime, and in his statement to the
investigating commission had defended his
honor and innocence as he had perfect
right to do, but using stronger language,
perhaps, than he should nave used. MIR.
WorthingtOn again quoted from authorities
to show that to convict tie accused Ut cen
duct unbecoming an officer and gentleman
the offense must be such that any brother
officer who should, after his conviction, take
him by the hand or visit his no ne, ~ he on
intimate terms with him. would himself be
disgraced thereby and render himself unfit
TO associate with gentlemen and men of
honor The Endorsement of several high
reviewing officers in the United States army
on the findings of court-martials were
quoted as showing that the Offense must be
exceptionally heinouS and such would
unfit the accused for association with right
thinking men. One case cited was that of
was cripple and called him a
liar. General Sherman, who reviewed this