St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1907-07-10
Judge Bates Defends His Action.
OuA6N law ASANh&S LILO nStAOhs
His Reply to Army Critics in the Grafton
Case.

His Reply to Army Critics in the Grafton
| Case.
Early in the spring the St. Adams Mes
senger reprinted lengthy article from
the LeavenwOrth Kan, Post, severely
criticising Judge Henry c. Bates for sen.
fencing Homer Grafton, private sol
der, to II years in the penitentiary. who
had been convicted of killing some Fill
pinos. The Post cited the comment Of
the Army and Navy Journal on the case
which had started a subscription in
Grafton's behalf to pay the expenses in
appealing the case from Judge Bates
court, and also published severe ar
raignment of the findings of the court by
Brig. Gen Funston.
The editor of the CALIFORNIAN at once
forwarded all the newspaper clippings to
Judge Bates and asked him if he wished
to make any reply. Last week Judge
Bates sent his reply, and we preface his
letter with the following editorial from
the Manila Times of May 90
"As an interesting sequel to the YER
dict of acquittal in the Grafton case,
news of which was published in yester-
days Times, comes the eloquent appeal
of Judge nenry c. Bates, who first tried
Grafton in the civil courts, in his own
defense. AS is generally known, Judge
Bates has been severely criticised, and
even maligned, for his finding of guilty,
even in the face of the sustention of his
finding by the supreme court of the
Philippines
According to Judge Bates, he has
failed thus far to discover an individual
who has read the records of the trial, in.
Guiding the testimony, who questions his
decision except a few who say Grafton
ought to have been sentenced to death ;
"a reading Of Judge Bates presenta-
ton of the case certainly seems to give
some grounds to this opinion. He claims
that the facts in the case have been dis
torted by The Army and Navy Journal
and by General Funston in his appeal for
funds to aid Grafton.
although somewhat belated in view
of the verdict of acquittal by the United
States Supreme Court on the unsatis-
factory ground of twice in jeopardy,
which decision is final, Judge Bates
stirring utterance in his own behalf is
not without interest. 1t comes to The
Manila Times in the form of an excerpt
from a letter from the judge to friend
of his in the United States, which ex-
cerpt the judge says this paper is at
liberty to publish. He says in his letter
to The Times that every statement he
makes in the document referred to will
be established by reference to the records,
and that Notwithstanding all that has
been said about it he has never deemed
it worth his time to publish any state
ment, but it might give more light to
some who now blame him because the
law is as it is and he adhered to it in the
trial Notwithstanding he did not make
the law and cannot change it. The ex-
cerpt referred to is as follows:
JUDGE BATES LETTER.
1.-THE Grafton case has excited much
comment in military circles and military
periodicals but have failed so far to
discover an individual who has read the
records Of the trial including the testi-
mony, the findings of the fact and the
sentence, who triticises my action in it
except few who say Grafton ought to
have been sentenced to death. An article
in the Army and Navy Journal of Feb. 4,
1905, has probably provoked the dis
cusson, and with the idea expressed by
General Funston that the government
is mere adjunct of the War Depart
ment has caused the criticism OF
unthinking and uniformed military
writers. The statements in the Army
and Navy Journal and those in the ap-
peal of General Funston for money to
aid in Grafton's defense apparently
quoted from said article) are series OF
misstatements and many of them false;
that article says that after the shooting
of the two natives by Grafton on July
"a, 1904, and before the alleged court
martial held early in August, gave an
opinion in writing on inquiry from Gen.
Carter by his Judge Advocate General
that the military authorities had full
jurisdiction in the case and that thereon
the court martial was convened. This is
false for at that time | was in Vermont
and did not return here until the middle
of October, 1904, and never heard of the
case till some weeks after my return
The article intimates that after giving
the written opinion | stirred up the civil
prosecution This is also false for the
complaint against Grafton was filed in
court on September 10, 1904, while
was on my voyage from San Francisco
to Manila. | do not know who caused
the complaint against Grafton to be
made but am of the opinion that it was
rightfully done. The trial before me
support of the prosecution were intro
duced before the court martial anC
though the Acting Judge Advocate hat
information that two natives were ey'
witnesses of the affair he contented him
self by lining up the military employee
of Buena Vista and asking them gener
ally If they knew anything about tn
case, and though the two eye witnesse
were in the line, they dared not max
their knowledge known in presence of tn
: officer and guards in case against a
American soldier for wrong committee
against barefooted native.
1.-THE record shows that on Septembe
II Colonel Bubb, in command at Cam
Jossman, refused to deliver Grafton t
the civil authorities in compliance with
warrant duly issued for his arrest upo
a charge of murder in the first degree
that in consequence of this warran
Major General James F. Wade then con
manding, Philippine division, soon afte
addressed communication to tn