The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1906-08-10
SIMILARITY
IN THEIR PAPERS
Court-martial of DR.. Brown
Closes With Strong
Defense.
EVIDENCE is IN HIS FAVOR
Witness Describes Papers Of the Two
Doctors and Attorney Makes
Vigorous Address.

The cOurt-maTtiaI OF Assistant Sur
geon Harry Lee Brown, charged with
violating his oath and OF conduct unbe-
coming an officer was concluded at
noon today.
The board OF officers heard the last
evidence shortly before noon. and with
In a short time a verdict was reached.
The findings in the case, however, will
not be made public until such time as
they reach the hands Of Secretary
Bonaparte and are thoroughly weighed
in every particular. The evidence sub,
mitted this morning was in the main ex-
tremely beneficial TO the accused.
Nor Very Striking.
Surgeon Gatewood was called - tho
stand at the opening OF the case and re-
sumed his testimony. It was declared
by Dr. GatewoOd that the alleged SIM
ilarity between the papers OF the ac-
cused and DR.. Brown was not OF a very
striking nature.
In summing up for the defense, At
torney Hoehling pointed out clearly the
fact that the answers Of the two men
We're as far from being alike as day is
compared TO night The sentiments ex-
pressed in the answers. he contended
were OF the same character, and he
pointed out where lt would have been
utterly impos sibIe for the two men 70
have made the same mistakes, coupled
with the fact that in their wording the
JWo papers We're not alike.
Inaccurate Wording.
II was shown by Attorney HoehIing
that where the specific charge con-
tanned the word unlawful" in this re-
spect the wording of the charges was
incorrect so far as the legality of the
documents was concerned. The wording
of the charges should have been 'im-
proper" Attorney HoehHnE commended
and 10 prove his version of the legal
point he cited several Instances where
similar charges had been revoked OF
undergone changes because OF the sub
stitution Of the word unlawful Tor
improper.
Cnbbing Not Shown.
While Or. Brown was not directly
charged with "cribbing," the court en-
deavored 10 prove that the accused had
made use CT information obtained from
DR.. Pease during the course of the ex-
animation. In dealing with this phase
Attorney Hoehling pointed out that
there was absolutely no evidence 70
show that DR. Brown had "cribbed'
from DR.. Pease any more than there
was to show that DR.. Pease had crib
bed" from DR.. Brown. Il was pointed
out that In many instances Or. Brown
was apparently more familiar with the
subject upon which he VS. being ex-
amiued that was DR.. Pease.
After concluding his address 10 the
court, in which he also touched upon
the character. professional. aud naval
standing OF the accused. Attorney
HOehling submitted the cause To Judge
Advocate Snyder. Captain Snyder who,
during Attorney Holdings discourse.
had been looking over the papers, rose
10 his feet and addressed the court. IT
matters not whether the oath admins
tered at the examination said the
Judge advocate, was lawful or other
wise. 1t remains that any oath admin
istered to members of the service is al
ways recognized as sacred and lawful.
notwithstanding its legal points outside
Of the service
The case was then submitted 10 the
court and within twenty minutes a YER
dict had been reached.