Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-08-08
Assistant Surgeons in Navy Ac-
cused of ''Cribbing."
EVIDENCE HEARD TODAY
Accusation Against DR.. Pease Elk.
planned by Surgeon Gatewood.
OTHER WITNESSES EXAMINED
Expected That the Case Of DR.. Brown
VIII Be Taken Up
Tomorrow.


The session today of the court-martial
board appointed to investigate charges Of
"cribbing" on examination which were pre-
ferred against Assistant Surgeons Theodore
Normand Pease and Harry Lee Brown,
United States navy, was taken up largely
with the testimony of Surgeon ]. D. Gate
wood. United States navy. the examination
being confined to the case of DR.. Pease
At the conclusion Of the cross-examination
of DR.. Gatewood other witnesses were in
PRODUCED for the prosecution. 1t is expected
that the defense will close its case tomor-
row and that the investigation of the
charges against DR.. Brown will be COM
menced Immediately thereafter.
DR.. Gatewood explained that DR.. Pease and
DR.. Brown took the examination, which
was held in the laboratory of the naval
medical school in Washington from July IS
to %. He said that as a member Of the ex-
aiming board it had become his duty to
inspect the papers submitted by both the
accused officers. He had on July 20 gone
over the answers made by Dr. Pease on
the subject of anatomy. noting nothing un-
usual in the character of the paper.
Discovers the Similarity.
Later he read DIR. Browns paper. and
then, he stated. he observed an alleged
similarity In the errors and omissions Of
the two sets of answers. Putting the two
together DR.. Gatewood asserted he found
that similar language to some extent had
also been used. DIR. Gatewood read to the
board the questions and answers out Of
which the charges grew. He also pointed
out another alleged significant parallel on
the papers submitted by the two accused
oHQ~ 80 %kn -x,IIo ~ ha fd n.
tanned by the commission which reported
upon yellow fever in Havana.
Papers identified by DR.. Gatewood as be-
ing laboratory notes intended for use Of the
students of the Naval Medical School were
then introduced in evidence. He was asked
to point out alleged similarities between
the contents Of the notes and the answers
and stated that he would have to read the
whole Of the papers In order to show the
agreement which he said existed. Attorney
Hoehling counsel for the accused. objected
on the ground that there was evidence
to connect the notes with DR.. Pease and the
objection was sustained, it being held that
there was no more reason for comparing
answers with them than there would be
In comparing the statements with standard
text books.
DR.. Ga.ewood then stated. in reply to a
question by the Judge advocate, that he
had on the morning Of July % found a
package of notes in drawer of DR.. Pease's
desk. The witness said he had asked DIR.
Pease at the time II the notes were his, and
had received an affirmative reply.
Attention Called to Answe;ss.
Surgeon Gatewood then stated that his
attention had been directed particularly to
an alleged similarity between some of the
answers Of DIR. Pease on the subject Of cIin-
ical microscopy and the contents of certain
laboratory notes which, he said. were in
cluded in the package of papers taken. as
he had testified, from the desk of the &C
cused officer.
The witness then read a set of answers
and a list of definitions contained in the
laboratory notes, pointing out what he con-
sidered to be "a marked verbal similarity. y
Under croSs-examination DR.. GatewoOd
said that as well as he could remember,
the examination in clinical microscopy had
been held July 10. The notes above referred
to. he said. were not of any specific value
as data for consultation on July %, when
they were found. He thought, however,
that they might have been Of some general
use at that time
The witness explained that the notes were
prepared originally for the benefit of the
students in the naval medical school, and
were not called In at the graduation of the
class. He also stated that the examination
was very technical in character, necessitaf-
ing the use of the same general terms in
different examination papers.
Dr. Gatewood was asked IL there was q
similarity in the arrangement of the an
swers given by DR.. Pease and DR.. Brown
on the subject Of anatomy, to which refer
ence had been made by the witness in his
direct examination.
Hc replied that the order in which the
answers were placed was not the same
and he was not certain as to whether the
arrangement in either case followed that
given by any standard textbook. The
similarity which DR.. Gatewood alleged to
exist in the anatomy answers consisted
he said. In a few omissions relating to
the contents Of certain anatomical re-
gions The court granted the motion of
Attorney Hoehling to have copied for the
official record of the case a section de-
voted to the area in question from a
standard textbook.
Mr.. Hoehling read the answers Of Dr.
Pease and DIR. Brown in describing the
request. DIR. Gatewood read paragraph
On the same subject from textbook
Counsel called attention to the fact that
different phraseology, as well as similar
language. was found in each.
Regarded as Very Unusual
In the course of his testimony on this
point DR.. Gatewood asserted that the order
followed in the papers of DIR. Pease and DR..
Brown in describing certain anatomical re-
lations was very unusual.
DIR. Gatewood said he thought the subject
Of the mosquito in relation to disease was
one frequently asked about in medical ex-
aminations. He said person in preparing
for an examination now would be very like
ly to give special attention to literature
dealing with that question.
In response to a question by Admiral
Walker DR.. Gatewood stated that there
were times when no official of the board
was in the examining room.
Assistant Surgeon Benjamin A. Dorsey.
United States navy. was the next witness
examined. He was one Of those undergo
ing examination for promotion from July
16 to q in the class with DR.. Pease and
DIR. Brown.
He said he had seen DR.. Pease each day
of the examination. The latter, the witness
said. was seated near him. He said he
had not at any time observed the accused
officer in communication with any other
candidate and had not seen any action OF
q questionable character on his part.
DIR. Pease was not placed on the stand,
the formal defense presented being the in
PRODUCTION Of the record OF his examina-
ton. appointment and service in the navy.
In closing Attorney Hoehling delivered
short address. He was followed by the
judge advocate. who closed for the prose-
cution with brief summing up statement
Proceedings Yesterday.