The Washington herald., 1909-07-29

Henry Z. Davis. chief counsel for the
Sutton family in the recent trial, has
lodged a formal protest with the Navy
Department against the ruling Of the
court Of inquiry which has just closed
its hearing at Annapolis.
He takes the ground that the court in
its investigation into the death OF Lieut..
James n. Sutton. r., of the Marine Corps,
exceeded its powers. as designated in the
precept under which Il Is conducting its
inquiries, when Il ruled that Mrs. Rose
i. Sutton, mother Of the deceased lieu
tenant, is a complainant in the case. and
al OF the officers who were with Lieut..
Sutton when he died, are defendants.
Mr.. Davis requests that the status OF
all persons affected by the courts ruling
be restored 10 that OF interested parties
merely.
Assistant Secretary Winthrop received
Mr.. Davis written representations late
yesterday afternoon, and said lie will
pass upon them to-day. IL IS improbable.
however, the Navy Department viii dis
turb the court of inquiry In the exercise
Of It's functions. the general impression
that prevails I'm naval circles being that
the court is sticking close 10 the pro-
visions Of the naval legal code.
Mr.. Dnvfs' Opinion.
in discussing his protest Mr.. Davis said
statements that he had been surprised AZ
the sudden turn OF affairs In the court
room at Annapolis were totally made
Quate TO express his feelings.
Il was astounded, incensed, and out
ragged" said the sutton attorney as he
strobe up and down IN his private office
talking over tho case. when / come
70 think Of what 1 might have said in
that court room 1 am surprised at my
own moderation.
THE ruling that the charge contained
in Mrs. Sutton's letter TO the Secretary
OF the Navy, a letter which antedated
the precept. changed the alignment of the
interested parties 70 the inquiry. seems 10
me utterly preposterous. 1 cannot see
how the Navy Department can fan 10
notify the court OF inquiry that Il has
gone beyond the powers conferred upon IT,
The Navy Department had Mrs. SUIT
tons letter when IL issued the preCept
IL 10 considered that her charge was suf-
fclent % place her I'm the position Of a
complainant and the young officers in
volved in the position of defendants. why
should not such an alignment have been
directed In the precept?
'An important feature that now pre-
SCENTS itself concerns the status of Lieut..
Howard II. Utley, whose absence neCes-
STATED the postponement Of further pro-
ceeGings until he arrives.
II he is TO appear as a witness and
tell his story as the other young men IN
VOWED with him told theirs, he should
M F.a oil 90
mOny Of either inquiry, nor should he be
permitted to talk Of the case with his
brother officers who have testified.
ION the other hand. II he enters the
court as n defendant. he has the right to
review all the testimony In both in
Quiries, 20 be represented by counsel.
and TO confer with the other defendants.
This VIII enable him 10 prepare 20 meet
the court with a story that Will tally
with whatever favorable testimony for
the defendants that has been given"
Mrs. Sutton and her daughter, who re-
turned TO Washington with their at
torney denied themselves TO all callers
and remained IN their apartment at the
Burlington. Hereafter Mr. Davis win do
all the talking. unless he decides TO with
draw from the case. as he told the court
yesterday he might have to do.
Not a Prosecution.
IT made Il plain at various times
throughout the prog7essb OF this inquiry
that I was not conducting a prosecution
nor seeking 20 fasten the blame for Lieut.
Sutton's death upon any one" said Mr.
Davis. Whether will remain in the
case I cannot say until learn the action
Of the Navy Department on my protest.
But 1 want It clearly understood that
If / accept the position Of prosecutor the
fur win fly. I will make Rome howl
and kid gloves win be conspicuous by
their absence"