Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-12-12

room for some doubt whether the punish
rnent imposed might not have been justly
made more severe. but as to this the de.
partment need express no opinion. In ont
respect. however, II seems proper that The
sentence should be mitigated as - per
nit the accused to participate in The next
annual practice cruise.
1T is therefore ordered that The sentence
be approved. but that SO much of the PEN
atty as might debar the accused from serv-
ice on any practice ship Attached to the
academy be remitted.'
Challenges of Members of Court.
In connection with the review of the case,
Secretary Bonaparte goes al some length
into the question of the challenges OF mem
bers of the court, and says:
when the accused was asked il he had
any objection to any member of the court
martial, he proposed, through MS counsel,
TO challenge each one of them succeSsiVely
for prejudice, and asked that he be allowed
to examine tee officer challenged in each
case as witness to support the challenge.
In response to an inquiry rom the prcsi-
dent of the court as 10 whether he had in
formation warranting a charge of prejudice
against any member of the court he ad-
mitted, through his counsel that he had
not, except in the case of one officer; the
court thereupon refused to receive the pro-
posed challenges except in the case of that
one officer.
''The department approves this action Of
the court. 1t is the well recognized DUTY of
an officer of the navy, a very responsible
and often a painful duty. to 81. in judg-
ment on military offenses alleged against
his comrades in arms. He is presumed to
be qualified by education and experience to
serve as a judge, both of the law and the
facts in such trials, and when, having been
designated by lawful authority, he preseE IS
himself as member of a court martial. it
must be further presumed, in the absence
of anything to the contrary, 1ha. he has in
formed the said authority Of any facts IL
his knowledge material to determine his
qualification for such service, and that it
has rightfully found him TO be qualified.
AS q matter of fact one officer originally
designated for duty in this case asked to be
and was excused from service for .his very
reason. The practice of nterrogating
jurors on their voir dire, when 1t was
sought to initiate In this case aDplies 10
persons whose fitness for service is estab-
lished prima facle by no similar presump-
tions. The accused then challenged Com
mander S. A. Staunton, [. S. N. for preju-
dice. The only evidence to support the chal-
lenge was the statement of Commander
Staunton himself which, so far aS ma
terlal. was as follows:
Il did state. in conversation regarding 1t
in the Metropolitan Club at Washington
that | thought the offense was a most seri
Gus one and one that could not be passed
over. | did state that 1t was my opinion
that midshipman who killed another mid
shipman in a fist fight was not a desira BILE
We're superintendent of the Naval Academy
| should deem 1t my duty to urge his dis
missal. l did that when l supposed the
matter was one to be settled by the dis
cipline of the Naval Academy and before
had any knowledge of the organization of
a court or my orders as a member of the
court, and before | knew what the charges
were to be. In my opinion it did
not unfit me in any way, as the matter
was one to be decided by the testimony
adduced. l should not have ap-
peared as a member of the court if I had
considered myself in any manner preju-
diced If 1 had considered that opinion,
accidentally expressed, in any manner
prejudiced me against the accused, of
whom had no knowledge at all, should
excused from serving on the court on the
ground of prejudice
The court thereupon sustained the chal-
lenge.
"The department would find some diff
ficulty in approving the action of the court
in this respect, If it were needful to pass
upon the question. The case had been
widely discussed in the press and in general
conversation when Commander Staunton
said what he did, and to hold that his mere
ly casual expression of opinion given on a
supposed state of facts which might be
shown by the evidence to have no existence
disqualified him from service, might estab-
Hsh an inconvenient and possibly a danger
Gus precedent. Inasmuch, however as the
accused preferred the challenge, the court s
ruling was not to his injury, and, under
the circumstances of this case, its pro-
priety need not be passed upon.
The Case of Admiral Mccormick.
AT the close of the case for the prose-
cution the Judge advocate Challenged Rear
Admiral Alexander H. Mccormick, United
States navy, retired, on three grounds,
namely: ID That he had privately con-
suited and received advice from a medical
IN nd tn II,
evidence given in the case; (2) That he had
so argued with some of the witnesses while
asking them questions, as to show that he
was greatly interested in certain points
which he had suggested, or in a certain
theory of the case; and 90 That he had
taken decided stand for either the prose-
cution or the Defence without, however
saying for which. A statement was there
upon made up by the challenged officer of
which the material part is as follows:
L have conferred with Medical Director
Walton as to what might produce the con-
dltions that were found in the case of Mid
shipman Branch, that inquiry being direct
ed to the end of my obtaining from wit
nesses on lie stand a confirmation or mega
tlon or whatever he might have told me.
my ultimate action to be guided by the
record or the evidence
Inc chanenge was not sustained
'After due consideration the department
Is obliged to hold that the court erred in
not sustaining this challenge on the first
O. cNAto' L iS StCoilu ana InirQ grounds
pear to the department altogether insufti-
clent. but to confer with any one as to any
aspect of the subject matter of inquiry. be-
Tort the court was serious irregularity
ana furnished good reason to excuse the
member concerned from further service II
he thought the knowledge and experience OF
this particular medical expert of especial
value in connection with the inquiry be-
for the court, he could have asked with en-
tire proprtety that the expert in question
be summoned as a witness, and, of course
could have availed himself of suggestions
contained in the latters testimony in in
terrogating subsequent witnesses; but. so
far as practicable in reason, nothing af-
fecttng the case should be allowed to reach
the mind of any member of the court un-
less 1t be heard or seen simultaneously by
all members and unless the person furnish
Ing II speak under oath, subject to cross
examination and in the presence of the en-
tire court 1t is proper here to add that
the department accepts unhesitatingiy the
further statement of Rear Admiral McCor-
mick that in his conference with Medical
Director Walton he was only seeking aid in
the impartial discharge of his duty as a
member of the court
"On the face of the record, there Is moth
ing TO inform the department what were
the suggestions made by Medical Director
Walton during this conference mr. IN indt-