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

cusd 'be confined to the limits of the Ma
val Academy for period of one year and
''be publicly reprimanded by the Secretary
of the Navy" The Secretary. however,
deems it proper that the sentence should
be mftlgated so as to permit Meriwether to
participate In the next annual practice
cruise, and i'll his order for the approval of
the sentence. directs that so much of the
penalty might debar the accused from
service on any practice ship attached to the
academy, be remitted.
Secretary Bonaparte's Review.
In his review of the case Secretary Bona
parte says.
THE charges in this case were three,
namely:
Il. Manslaughter.
1T. Violation of the third clause of the
eighth article for the government of the
navy.
49, Conduct to the prejudice of good or
der and discipline.
Under the first charge there was but
one specification of which the material
portion alleged that the accused. at a time
and place specified, did then and there
with his fists, upon the body and head of
the aforesaid James r. Branch. junior,
unlawfully and willfully strike number of
blows, from the effects of which blows the
said James r. Branch, junior. did at about
ten hours ante-meridian on the 9TH day of
November, 1868 die; and the said Minor
Meriwether, junior. in the manner and by
the means aforesaid did kill and slay the
said James r. Branch. junior"
The court found this specification mot
proved, and the accused mot guilty of
the first charge, and acquitted him there
of.
The department approves these findings
and this acquittaI. The specification was
drawn upon the informatio as to the cause
of the late Midshipman Branchs death.
IA u y,Y~.ay
topSy performed during the trial
That autopsy disclosed certain facts
which might justify reasonable doubt
whether the death was in fact due to blows
inflicted by the accused, there being at
least a possibility that it resulted from a
fall, of which several occurred during the
INST fight in which these blows were dealt.
Assuming that the death was the conse-
quence of one or more OF these falls there
is ground to claim with some force that
the manner and means whereby the ac-
cused 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 indOrsing it, hut the ac-
cused was undoubtedly entitled to the
penent or any reasonable doubt and the
record discloses a state of proof which if
Ii did not compel. at least justities an ac-
quittal of this charge.
Under the second charge there were two
specifications, the first alleging that on
october 81 the accused did quarrel with
and use provoking words toward the de-
ceased saving TO the latter that ne was
sneak and coward, or words to that ef-
feet the second, that on November the
accused did 'willfuIly and maliciously as
sault and strike the deceased
Under the third charge there was sin
gle specification setting forth that on No
Vember the accused did unlawflfIy en-
gage with the deceased in a fight with
fists.
Found Guilty.
The court found all three of these speci-
ficaions proved and the accused guilty
of both charges.
Although the accused had pleaded not
guilty to these charges. there was prac-
tically no dispute as to the facts, and the
department has no hesitancy in approving
the several findings Of the court lastly
above mentioned. The evidence was, In
large part, irrelevant as to any other cues
ton than that of the penalty to be i'm
posed, and even under the practice of mill
tery courts, 1t was admitted with excep-
tionally little restriction. 1t appeared sub
stantially without dispute that the relations
OF the accused with the deceased had not
been friendly; that the accused regarded
himself as aggrieved by what he consid-
cred malicious abuse of authority on the
part of the deceased. and visited the latter
in his quarters, after he had turned in
having previously stated that he intended
TO make the deceased fight him. or al all
events, that he considered a fight the prob
able result of the interview. and after a
brief but angry dispute, used toward the
deceased the language contained in the
first specification of the second charge As
to the incidents of the subsequent fist fight
there was dispute whatever in the tes-
timony. Considerable evidence was offered
however, tending to show that such fights
had been of frequent occurrence during
many years at the academy and had been
occasionally called to the attention of the
authorities there. and only IA
quate penalties, and usually no penalties
whatever. had been inflicted upon the par
ticfpants. This evidence seems to the de-
partment altogether immaterial as affecting
the guilt or innocence of the accused
There can be no such thing as law
full custom to commit crime, and the fact
that through laxity or want of vigilance of
other persons in the service, other offend
ers had escaped punishment could in no
wise justify the accused In violating the
law. That the participants in this fight all
knew they were doing something wrong is
sufhclently shown, In the opinion of the de-
partment, by their inteTrupting the fight
when an officer was believed TO be ap-
preaching the room where 1t occurred They
may not have expected TO receive adequate
punishment but they felt it was to their
interest to avoid discovery There was also
evidence tending to show that the accused
was unfamiliar with the articles for the
government OF the navy and had not been
specially informed of the prohibition against
quarreling and fighting contained in the
third paragraph or article g. 1t appears
very clearly however, from the record that
the articles for the government of the
navy were conspicuously posted on one of
the practice ships during the summer cruise
and read once each week to the midshipnen
on board, the accused being one of the lat
ter, and. since the oath which he took on
his admission to the academy referred spe-
cihcally TO these articles, the department
holds that he can claim no immunity on
the ground OF ignorance of a law which 1t
was clearly his duty TO know.
The Sentence.
THE sole remaining question is as to the
sentence. This is that the accused be con-
fined to the limits of the Naval Academy
for the period of one year. and be publicly
reprimanded by the Secretary of the Navy
''The department has no difficulty IN hold
Ing that this sentence Is amply justified by