The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1908-04-30

found 1t necessary to resort to force
in arresting and handling disorderly
characters, ead that in at least one
instance he had found it necessary to
take life.
If the suggestion is warranted that
the raiders fired upon Dominguez for
the purpose of avenging themselves
upon him, It would seem far more
natural and reasonable to sup
pose that he was fired upon by
those who had cause. real or i'm
aginary, for seeking revenge rather
than by those who had no such cause.
There is no word of testimony to
show that any soldier of the battalion
had ever so much as even heard OF
Dominguez, let alone that they had
any cause to injure or mOlest him IN
any way.
I'm this connection there is much
also in the testimony about a story
being circulated among the people OF
Brownsville on the day of the assault
that on the preceding evening a Mrs.
Evans, who resided near the garrison,
was assaulted by one of the soldiers,
who seized her by the hair and threw
her to the ground and then ran away.
The Mrs. Evans Story.
"There is no sworn testimony in all
the record to show that any such as
sault occurred, but an abundance OF
evidence to show that on account OF
the circulation of this kind of story
there was great excitement among
the people of Brownsville on Monday,
August 13, and that in consequence
such an ugly spirit was manifested
with respect to the soldiers that
Mayor Combe felt 1t his duty to visit
Major Penrose at the garrison about
5 o'clock that afternoon and warn him
not to allow any of his soldiers to be
in Brownsville that night. telling him
in that connection if any of them
should appear on the streets OF
Brownsville that night he would not
be responsible for their lives, or
words to lAat effect.
in consequence, Major Penrose is
sued an order Canceling all passes and
requiring all his men to return to
quarters by O'Clock that evening and
to remain in quarters during the
night.
There is no testimony to show that
any of the men knew why this order
was issued, and no pretense OF any
testimony that any of the men re-
sented it or expressed dissatisfaction
on account OF it in any way whatever.
Present Duty.
"At this time we are concerned
only as to what affects the soldiers,
and our sole concern as to them Is to
ascertain. If we can, what our duty
toward them requires:
"It is not essential to our action
that we should determine who the
raiders were. 1t is enough to know,
what now seems to be commonly
agreed upon that no matter who did
the shooting. there are many OF the
soldiers who are wholly innocent both
of participating in the affray and or
withholding knowledge with respect
thereto, and that all such have
suffered dis race, loss and hard
ship from which they should be re-
lieved, and that such relief can be
granted only by the act of congress.
apparently no one appreciates this
more keenlv than the president. 1t
is interesting TO note how this matter
seems to have weighed upon his mind
and how by successive steps he has
reached this conclusion.
His order diScharging the men
without honor was dated November 5.
1906. COngrcSs convened December
2 1906. On that day resolutions were
introduced in the senate authorizing
an investigation of the facts connected
with the affray and the discharge.
They led to a debate and discussion
in consequence of which on the 18th
day of December, 1906, the secretary
of war, by direction of the president,
issued the following order:
Applications to re-enlist from former
members of Companies B. c and d,
Twenty hftn infantry who Were dis
charged under the provisions of Special
orders No. 2GG, War Department. Nov.
~ /. / l..
accompanied by such evidence, also In
writing as the applicant may desire to
submit to show that he was neither i'm
plicated in tue raid on Brownsville. Te>
on the night of Aug. Is, 1906 nor with
held any evidence that might lead to t,
discovery of the perpetrators thereof"
Later, on the 14th day of January,
1907, the president, in special message
to the senate, said:
II am now satisfied that the effect of
my order disnissing these men without
honor was not to bar them from all civil
employment under the government, and
therefore that the part of the order
which consisted of a declaration to this
effect was lacking in validity, and I have
directed that such portion be revoked"
"On the 18th day of March. 1908
the committee on military affairs
HAVING llluNI llS ltpOl /, lllb pItSlu6ul
said, in a special message to the senate
that he desired to revive the order of
December II, 1906, and therefore re-
commended
the passage of Il law extending this time
limit, so far as the soldiers concerned
are affected, until a year after the pas
sage of the law, and permitting the rein
statement by direction of the president Oh
any man VINO, in his judgment, shall az
pear not to be within the class whose
discharge was deemed necessary in or
der to maintain Inc discipline and morale
OF the army"
I'm harmony with that message four
of the members Of the committee on
military affairs who had joined in the
majority report joined in supple
sage Of bill providing for the re-
instatement in the army, but without
providing for pay in the meantime Of
all the discharged soldiers who would
within a year after the approval Of
the act satisfy the president that they
did not participate in the affray, and
that they have not withheld any in.
formation with regard thereto.
"Later, or the 18th day of March.
the senator from Missouri introduced
Dill Us. 6ZOG),) which went still
further in favor Of the men, and pro,
vided that all who might re enlist un-
der its provisions should have full
pay from the date when they were
discharged without honor.
Prior to the Introduction by the
senator from Missouri of S. 0206,
introduced, March II S. 5729. Both OF
these bills were referred to the com.
mittee on military affairs, Both have
been reported from that committee
adversely Both are in the calendar
for consideration by the senate, in &C
cordance with their respective merits,
without either having any parliament
tary advantage over the other.
speak now in favor of the passage
of S. 5729.
Compares Bills.
at will be observed with respect
to these measures that both of them
proceed upon the assumption that
some of the men, whether few or
many, or all. who were discharged
wit hDLf bnnnp tnnnnnnt nj thof