Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1906-12-11


tent general for one moment hesitate
in the interest Of the public, to disband
the entire battalion and discharge 1t
from the service in order to avoid q
repetition of the danger?
Can real and logical distinction be
made between the crime Of treason,
under the circumstances supposed, and
the crime Of murder In this case? Both
are capital offences. one perhaps more
heinous than the other, and more dan
gerous to the government itself. but
in both cases II seems to me clear tiiat
the government must protect itself
and the community to which It Is res
pOnsible from a recurrence Of such
offences, not by Furnishing guilty and
innocent alike. but by separating both
the guilty and innocent from the SER
vice. so as to deprive the guilty Of a
second opportunity for such a crime,
even though this may result In incon-
venience and perhaps hardship to the
innocent.
Discharge Not a Punishment.
1t is a mistake to suppose that this
order Is In itself punishment either
Of the innocent or Of the guilty. A
discharge would be an utterly inade-
quate punishment for those who are
guilty whether OF committing the mur-
der. or of Withholding or suppressing
evidence which would disclose the per-
netrators Of such crime. The use Of
the word penalty in the proceedings Is
q. mere misnomer and is unfortunate.
The dismissal from the service Of the
members Of this battalion under the
Is not a punishment,
however great the hardship. There Is
a dismissal technically known as dis
honorable discharge, which is only i'm
posed by sentence by a court. This
Is a punishment But the members Of
this battalion were not dishonorably
discharged. They could not have been
so discharged except after trial. They
were discharged for the good Of the
service, as the technical phrase is,
without honor" 1t is not fortunate
phrase. because so easily confused with
L dishonorable discharge. 1t is called
without honor" to distinguish the dis
charge from a discharge with honor.
or an honorable discharge. which indi-
Gates the termination, in due course,
OF satisfactory service. An enlist
ment brought prematurely to an end
for the good Of the service cannot be
an honorable discharge. Hence the dis
must be made. The discharge
without honor Is merely the ending
If a contract and separation from the
service under right reserved in the
statute for the protection Of the gov
ernment, which may work a hardship
to the private discharged, but which, in
the public interest, must sometimes be
exercised.
But II is said that the order forbids
GENTRY by the discharged men into
the army or navy or civil service, and
this is penalty. When an employee
Is discharged for the good of the SER
vice it naturally follows that he can
not be taken back. and the president
in formally stating this result Is not
Imposing a penalty in the proper sense
Of the term. He Is only laying down
a rule of ineligibility for the service
with respect to which 1t is his execu-
tive duty to prescribe the rules Of adj
Should hereafter facts be dis
closed, or a new state Of facts arise
from which 1t can be inferred that the
public service will suffer no detriment
from re- ENTRY Of any one of these men
into the service his ineligibility can be
removed by a mere executive order
Misplaced Sympathy.
Much sympathy has been evoked for
those who have been so long in the
public service as some Of the non-com-
missioned officers and others Of this
battalion Of the 25th infantry. 1t Is
to be said with respect to these nom
commissioned officers that upon them
falls the duty Of maintain
ing the discipline of the companies and
the battalion, and that by reason OF
their long service and from their OH
cial authority they have more infiu-
ence over the men and more opportu-
nifty to learn the circumstances lead
ing to a detection Of the guilty in this
case than any others connected with
the regiment. Indeed. 1t was their pc
culiar duty to find out and disclose
the facts. but they have failed to do
so. 1t may be that they were not der
elict in this. II not, they have
had the misfortune to be associated
with men whose conduct and immuni-
ty from detection requires the govern
ment in the public service to exercise
its reserved contract right Of dis
charge against the entire body OF
which they were members.
Color of Troops Irrelevant.
The suggestion made in some quar-
ters that this battalion has been treat
ed in this way simply because the men
are colored hardly merits notice. The
fact Of their color and the racial feel
ing aroused between them and the
citizens Of Brownsville may have been
the cause and furnished the motive,
but certainly not justification, for the
plot to murder men, women and chill
dren; but to this extent only in expla-
nation OF the circumstances Is the fact
OF their color at all relevant.
In a body of men sworn to uphold
the law enlisted as the instruments Of
the supremacy Of the
law, no obligation Of comradeship,
which would prevent one from telling
the truth and detailing the circum-
stances that would lead to the con-
viction Of his associates Of murder, can
te recognized by those in authority and
charged with the responsibility OF
maintaining the discipline Of the army.
1t is possible that evidence may be
adduced in future which will tend to
exculpate entirely some Of the men
now discharged, both from participa-
ton in the crime and assistance In the
conspiracy Of silence to prevent the
detection of the offenders; and when