The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-12-13
SENTENCE OF
 MERIWEI Middy Convicted on Two
 Charges. THE PENALTY NOT HEAVY Is Acquitted on the Count of
 ManSlaugh.er. Confinement to the Naval Academy for One Year and Public RePri- S mand by Secretary
 of Navy.
THE PENALTY NOT HEAVY


 the period of one year and public rep rimand by the Secretary of the Navy is the sentence of the court in the case Of Midshipman Minor Meriwether. Jr., tried by courtmartial at Annapolis on the charge of manslaughter, violation of the third clause of the eighth article of the government of the navy, and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. all three charges arising from fist light between the accused and Midshipman James R. Branch. Jr., on November 5 last. Two days later Midshipman Branch died.
 The accused was acquitted of the first charge and found guilty of the second and third. Secretary Bonaparte today approved the findings and ordered that the sentence be approved, but that "so much of the penalty as might debar the accused from service on any practice ship attached to the Academy be re- n1itted.' Early today the Secretary received call from Representative Broussard of Louisiana, from whose district Midship- man Meriwether was appointed to the Academy, and made known to him the sentence of. the court and the Depart ment's action thereon.
 Mir. Broussard expressed his satisfac- tion with both. and 1t is understood that no Congressional action will he asked in the case.
 Opinion of Bonaparte.
 As soon as the necessary copies could be made, Secretary Bonaparte ordered that the sentence of the court and his review be made public. The Secretary says there Is perhaps room for some doubt whether the punishment imposed might not have been made more justly severe and disapproves the action Of the court in sustaining the challenge of. Commander g. A. Staunton as mem aA A prejudice, and in failing to sustain the challenge of Rear Admiral A. H. Mo- Cormieit. u. s. N. Retired, on several grounds.
 h his review of the case the secre- tary says: s.1l ssUnder the first charge there was but one specification which the mate rial portion alleged that the accused at time and place specified did then and there with his fists upon the body and head of the aforesaid James R. Branch, IT.. unlawfuliv and wiIfully strike a number of blows from the effects of (which the said James F. Branch. Jr., s did die: and the aforesaid Minor Mer' iwether, Jr.. in the manner and by the means aforesaid. did kill and slay the said James R. Branch. Jr.' The court found this specification not proved and the accused not guilty of the first charge and acquitted him thereof.
 "The department approves these findings and this acquittaL The spe- -ification was drawn upon informa- ton as to the cause of the late Mid shtpnan Branch's death which the de- partment had prior to the autopsy performed during the trial. That au- topsy disclosed certain facts which might Justify a reasonable doubt whether the death was in fact due to blows inflicted by the accused, there being at least possibility that it faIl nf x1yht tNh occurred during the fist fight in which thes" blows were dealt.
 Narrow and Technical.
 There is ground to claim with some force that the manner and means whereby the accused did kill and slay' the deceased were not those set forth in the specification. This contention is certainly narrow and technical, and the department is not to be understood as endorsing it; but the accused was undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of my reasonable doubt and the record discloses state of proof which if it did not compel, at least justified an acquittal of this charge"
 Of the second and third charges of both Of which the accused was found guilty, ...e Secretary says there was practically no dispute of the facts and that ''The department has no hesitancy fin approving the several findings of the court lastly above mentioned" < Of the large amount of testimony offered for the purpose of showing that fights had been of frequent oc- cllrrence at the academy and that usuallv no penalties whatever had been inflicted on the participants. the Sec retary says:
 'This evidence seems to the depart ment altogether immaterial as affect ing the guilt or innocence of the ac- cfsed There can be no such thing
 Gal tn A and the fact that, through the laXity or want of vfgilence of other persons in the service, other offenders had escaped punishment, should in no wise justify the accused in violating the law.
 N That the participants in the fight all knew they were doing something wrong Is sufficiently shown in the opinion of the department by their in- terrupting the fight when an officer was believed to be approaching the room where it occurred.
 To Avoid Discovery.
 '%They may not have expected to re- ceIve adeouate punishment but they felt 1t was to their interest to avoid discovery. Fhis vas also tending to show that the accused was unfamiliar with the articles for the government of the navy and had not been especial ly informed of the prohibition against 0uarreling and fighting contained in the third paragraph of article eight.
 1t appears very clearly, however, from the record that the rules for the government of the navy were conspicuously posted on one of the practice ships during the summer cruise and read ~nce each week to the nlidshipmen on board tune accused being enc of the latter) and since the oath which he took since his admission to the academy referred spe- cihcaIIy to these articles, the depart ment holds that he can claim no im- munity on the ground of ignorance Of n law which 1t was clearly his duty to know"
 Of the sentence the Secretary says;
 The department has no difficulty in holding that the sentence is amply jus tined by the offense committed. There Ia indeed room for some douot whether the punishment imposed might not