Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-05-27
.FALSEHO0D ALLEGED
Also Culpable in Efficiency in
Performance Of Duty.
CHARGES BY A SAILOR
ADMIRAL LEMLY SUBJECT OF
SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS.
Court Martial Demanded-The Grounds
of the Charges-Department
Will Consider.

George F. Ormsby. attorney for John
Smith, formerly a seaman in the United
States navy, today filed with the Secretary
Of the Navy formal charges against Judge
Advocate General Lemly, and asked that
tho officer be tired by general court-martial
on charges of "falsehood and culpable in
efficiency in the performance of duty" The
charge grows:out of the case of John Smith.
which is now in tine Supreme Court on ap-
peal of the United States from a judgment
rendered In the Court of Claims.
Mr.. Ormsby contends that in moving for
an advance of the case on the court docket
Capt. Lemly has made false representa-
tions to the Secretary Of the Navy to in
duce the latter to sign letter which Is
quoted by the assistant attorney general in
his court motion. 1t is charged by Mr..
Ormsby that Capt. Lemly has purposely
made these alleged misstatements to inhu-
ence the court against his client.
The validity of large number OF COURT
martial verdicts hinges upon the decision OF
the court as it involves an Interpretation
of the statutes which require that the ac-
cused sailor shall be furnished with copy
of the charges filed against him Mr.. Orms-
by says the Court of Claims holds that the
charges shall be given to the prisoner With
in ten days after his arrest, but In order 10
influence the Supreme Court. he declares.
Judge Advocate General Lemly states that
the Court of Claims held that charges
should be fled Immediately after arrest.
He also asserts that Capt. Lemly'S state
ment as to the chaos into which naval JUS
tice will be thrown IL the decision of the
Court of Claims is upheld is absurd and
false.
Court Of Claims Findings.
It appears from the findings of fact in the
Court of Claims that John Smith. seaman
was arrested on shipboard May 26. 1892
for alleged disobedience of orders. He was
and loss of pay. 1t was shown to the court
that the charges were not filed and fur
nished to the accused until July 1, although
he had been in confinement from May 20
to the latter date
After quoting the various statues covering
the case, the Court of Claims gave the
claimant judgment for the full amount Of
pay of which he had been deprived. The
court held that charges should have been
filed with the prisoner within ten days.
which was not done. 1t has been stated that
a decision along similar lines by the United
States Supreme Court would invalidate
court-martial sentences for forty years
past. There is statute of limitations,
however. which is said to preclude such an
effect on court-martial verdicts of more
than six years standing.
Taking the official record of the Court of
Claims as basis, Mr. Ormsby charges that
Judge LemIy has grossly" misstated the
case in the motion to advance, and declares
he has done so solely to influence the court.
He also cites article appearing in a
recent issue of the New York Maritime
Register, wherein specific charges of al
legged misconduct are printed against the
judge advocate general of the navy.
1t was stated at the Navy Department
today that the charges would be given con-
sideration.