Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1906-01-09
CONSIDER KNOTTY PROBLEMS
THE COURT MARTIAL RUNS
AGAINST A SNAG.
Deeatur's Case Complicated And He
May Not Escape Coyic-
Miller's Case
Is Next.
DECISION IN DECATUR CASE
AWAITED WITH INTEREST.

| - w al Ell " u ~ l. RE = L.
The court martial now in session at
the Naval Academy to try such alleged
| haZers as are brought before it had to
consider some knotty problems this
| morning in connection with the sec.
ond set of charges which Midshipman
stephen Decatur, Jr., of Portsmouth,,
N. H.. was compelled to face.
At length. the question OF whether
or not Decatur was being put in
jeopardy twice for the same offence.
the Judge Advocate was compelled to
ask the ecuIt to delay the proceedings
in order that he might obtain more
| light on the question. He Will lay the
matter before the Judge Advocates s
| Department this afternoon.
Tie case against Decatur consists Of
two charges The first is under the
original Act, that of 1874, it being nee
essary for a conviction under it to
prove active participation in hazing.
| Under this charge are the speoifica.
| tions that Decatur told Chester )
| Roberts. of the fourth class, TO carry
| the following message TO an upper
| classman 'It she had been a DOG, do
you think she would have taken il -
| or words to that effect. aud that he
| required Fourth Classman Charles O.
W. Mailley TO bring him articles of
food
| The second charge is encouraging
| or counteuanciug hazing, as forbid.
den by the Act of 1908, amsndatory
| TO the former act The only speci6ca.
tion under this charge is that Decatur
was present when another midshipman
| caused Church to stand on his head
and did not prevent it. This was sub
| stantially specified under charge
upon which Decatur has already been
| found mot guilty and his counsel
| claims that a further trial will not bo
proper.
The first specification under the
| first charges against Decatur is that
| he told fourth classnau, Charles s.
| Roberts, to carry n message TO an up.
per classman. This led, it is stated,
| to the haziug Of the fourth classmau.
| The second specification is that Dc
| catur compelled Charles O. ". Mail
| ley, of Stroumsburg Neb., to brig
| him breakfast about fifteen times
/ The only specification under the seq
ond charge is that Decatur counteu-
anced the hazing of Gaylord Church,
of che fourth class, by being in the
room when he was compelled TO do
| the haug stunt known as the six
| teenth. The hazing of Church in this
| manner formed the basis of one of the
| specifications in the charge of which
| Decatur was acquitted.
There was motion on the part of
the defence TO strike out the two first
| specifications inasmuch as they did not
| constitute haziBg within the meaning
of the law. Mr. Theall, Dssatur's
counsel. quoted from an opinion deliv-
| cred by Attorney General Garland in
| 1885 TO show that hazing, as applied to
practice il use at the Naval Academy
| had for it essence cruelty towards an
under classman and that neither Of
| the specifications contained any allega-
| tions that measured up to this defini-
| tion.
The court was cleared and after a
| lengthy consultation the court denied
| the motion TO strike out. Ia doing so
| it quoted another part Of Attorney
| General Garland S opinion which gave
| TO hazing a very much wider scope
4 than cruelty treatment only. This
| definition, ON which thus received the
tentative endorsement of the court,
included any molestation or annoyance
| TO an under clagsman or the encourag-
ing or ordering to do anything not re-
| qnired of him and clearly applied TO
such practices as having an under
classman bring articles of food
The decision On this poin will make
it very difficult for Decatur to escape
| conviction on the second specification
unless be Is prepared to positively
deny this allegations. 1t is also
| practical announcement of a verdict
| of guilty in the case OF Midshipman
Petersen B. x. Marzoni, whose trial
was concluded yesterday. Marzoni
admitted that he had told plebes to
| bring articles of food TO his room, but
claimed that he had not compelled
| them TO do So This constitutes hazing
however, it would appear by the
| court action on the motion IN De-
catuT's case.
4 plea in bar was submitted az 10
| the third specification 1t was urged
on behalf Of the defence that the court
was without jurisdiction to try the
| offence Of encouraging or couDte-
naneing hazing," it being ccntended
that the Act of 1903 did not confer
that right to the Superintendent Of
the Naval Academy to assemble the
court for that purpose. The Judge
| Advocate read from the decision OF
the Attorney General that the Act Of
1903 was supplementary to that Of
1874, and that the court martial as
sembled under the first act could
Try the offeBses defined in the second.
The court denied the plea in bar,
whereupon Mr Theall at once fled
another plea raising the contention
that inasmuch as the court rad taken
the ground that the two Acts had been
joined together and the further fact
that Decatur had already been tried
on a specification embracing sEbstan
TALLY the same facts, that 70 try him
again would be putting him in jeop-
ardy twice for the same offence. The
Judge Advocte admitted that there
was much force in this contention and
asked the court TO adjourn IN order
that he might look into the ques tiOn.
he will lay the matter before the
Judge Advocates Department this
afternoon.
The decision Of the court, which i
awaited, is of great interest generally,
bat of more particular interest IN De-
cattur's case, although il may arise IN
other cases also. 1t is possible that
the court has made an error in pro
cedure By not finding Decatur guilty
in the first instance, as they had tho
power TO do IN case they believed that
be had couuteuanccd hazing. IT IN
douhtedly had the right to bring in a
verdict OF not guilty as to the