New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-01-05
MIDDIES FEAR TO TALK.
HaSing Perm1eated 4cademg-Ezd
Not IN Sight, Says Officer.

Annapolis. Nd, Jan AIN the trial to-day
ter. OF New-AIbany Ind. for the alleged hazing
of Midshiprnan Chester 6. Roberts, some new
forms OF hazing were explained Not only this,
but the number OF witnesses who sought to be
excused from answering questions on the ground
that they would tncrininate themselves fndi-
Gates how thoroughly the practice OF hnzing has
permeated the institution
The court ruled that midshipInan did not
incrirninate himself by stating that he was
present at hazing If he did not actually take
part in It. but after this explanation several
midshipmen asked to be excused
Midshtp1nan Chester S. Roberts. the first wit
ness appeared most reluctant TO testify and
parted the questions Of the judge advocate IN
I'll Captain Rees, the president Of the court.
cautioned him.
Midshipman L, NJ Atkins was the first wit
called for the defence. He said that he
was the ranking nidshipman officer at the table
where Foster and Roberts sat and that he was
responsible for the conduct at the table. On
cross examination the witness said he did not
believe any but a first class man would send a
fourth class man under the table unless permis-
sion to do so had previously been asked of the
first class man present
William c. Barker Fosters roommate, testi-
fed to the time when Midshipman Grover G.
CIevenger had come TO the room occupied by
himself and Foster. He said that Roberts was
not with Clevenger this being in contradiction
Of testimony given by Roberts.
Mr.. Theau addressed the court briefly. II
regard to the charges of making Roberts stand
his head and hang to the locker, he said
that the evidence Of too indefinite a nature
to justify a conviction.
Lieutenant T. P. Magruder, aid to Superfn-
tendent Sands. who has charge of the prepara-
ton Of the charges and specifications upon
which szsdshpnen tried before the court
martial, said this afternoon that the only time,
except those already tried. was one against
Midshipman P. B. MarZoni. He said there
would be charges in a new case ready for the
court as soon as it has disposed Of the previous
one and that he could not say when the end
IN all the cases tried so far the charge has
been framed under the act of 1874, under which
active participation in haZing must be proved.
In future cases the charges will be framed
under the amendment to the law approved
March g. 1908. The words of this act make It
an offense, punishable by dismissal Ito partici-
pate in, encourage or coun tenance haznS-"
There Is no question that advantage Of the pro-
vision Of this act be taken. as Attorney
General Moody, in the opinion in which he ruled
that the superintendent Of the Naval Academy
did not have power to SuTnmar1ly dismiss q mid
shipran for haztng upon knowledge gained by
his own investigation. said that the act of 1903
v-Es anendatory of the act of 1874 in so far as 1t
related to hazing and that the summary power
of dismissal granted TO the superintendent in
the later act vas intended to be used only after
a conviction by a court nartial- Less evidence
is required to substantiate the charge Of en-
couraging or participating in hazing than a
charge Of actively engaging in 1t. On the other
hand, the evidence will be harder to procure,
owing TO the fact that the witnesses can more
readily claim immunity from answering QueS-
nate themselves, since their mere presence might
mean encouraging or countenancing hazing