The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-12-16
s NSATIO NAL
BRIEF IS FILED

he would go free; if not. he would go
in irons.
Rather than go in irons he signeo
the confession. according TO his story
Shortly after he signed this state
ment. he was carried ss a witness be
fore the court OF inquiry investigating
cOmmissary transactions. There he
denied every word Of the statement
.chsEging chat IL was given under
duress. when he was desperate by rea-
son OF long confinement and the threa.
Of irons. He declared that when h.
signed the statement he believed revr
lation OF the circumstances would vim
dictate him.
Following this turn Of the case.
points out Mr.. Hicks. Dickey Wa
thrown back into prison. and the
charge on which he was cOurt-m mar
| aled lodged against him. but in tn,
meantime he had entered suit agains.
Captain Roger Wells. who was presl-
dent OF court martial; Captain MariA.
Judge advocate. and others tor $25.
eco damages on the specification o.
false Imprisonment during the previ-
GUS two months.
From the time he was put n con-
finement. following the Judgment o.
the "scandalous conduct" charge
against him. and the date of the court
martial. says Mr.. Hicks. the steward
was led out every day and paraded in
irons before his comrades.
Mr.. Hicks's brief. submitted 20 the
Secretary of the Navy. treats extern
sively OF legal matters involved. in
which he undertakes TO esta bIIsh that
the charge was without authority OF
law and contrary to all principles of
ma tural justice. in that 1t was not
definite and the prisoner was there
fore put at the disadvantage Of not
knowing what he was to be tried for.
He also contends that the statement
of confession secured from Dickey
was obtained under an oath admins
tered illegally. arguing from this that
the falsity of the statement could not
Justify the charge OF perjury. Fur
Their he pointed out that the secpnd
statement regulating the first was
never proved TO be other than abso-
I lutely true. Therefore the prisoner
could not he convicted of perjury on
that. he said. The nature of the charge
was such. however. that proof of per-
jury seemed not to be necessary to
conviction. although the specifications
cited conflicting statements, each made
under oath.
The brief reviews the evidence as to
methods used to get the repudiated
statement from the steward, claiming
that they constituted duress, which led
the steward TO make confession in
order to escape further and additional
punishment. and in the belief that it
would not stand after ne had disclosed
attendant circumstances
Mr.. Hicks said that he intended 20
appear personally before Secretary
Meyer. He declared he would fight the
case to the last ditch. Also ne pre-
dicted that secretary Meyer would an
null the verdict of the cOurt-martial.
Il don't believe Secretary Meyer
Will stand for it he said.
\ statement was given out yester-
day by Captain Mark. judge advocate
of the cOurt-martial in which ne de-
MED that the court was secret He
said that il newspa per men were de-
niec permission to board the Louisiana.
where the trial was held. it was done
without authority OF the court. Cap
tain Mark addci that cOurt-martials
were rarely conducted in secret