San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-02-16
PLEAD LIQUOR
:. CARRYING NOT
'U.NbECON|NC'
Andrews Defense Says Act
Is Neither Base, Vile
Nor Depraved.
is A MISDEMEANOR
Cites Cases to Show That
"Unbecoming" Convic-
tons Based on Crime.

Adverse rulings by the court-martial
of special pleas entered by defense
counsel, First Lieut. Park Holland. in
the trial of First Lieut.. Leland s.
Andrews. on charges Of illegally pos
sesSing and transporting intoxicating
liquors, took M the trial at Fort Sam
Houston all of Friday morning. Fol-
lowing lengthy arguments the court
denied the special plea that the court
martial hal no authority TO try Lieu
tenant andrews for violation of the
national prohibition act. Likewise
did the court-martial deny the plea
that Lieutenant Andrews charges did
not constitute conduct unbecoming an
officer. The defense counsel was plac-
ing before the court his fourth special
plea when court adjourned until ! 80.
The fourth special plea was entered on
the ground that no person can be tried
/ twice for the same Offense. and defense
counsel submitted evidence and cited
cases in an effort to prove to the
I caUrts,nssf '-'l that the rs'fprAart wac
1 being trleu second time without his
own consent for a crime for which he
has already been punished in civil
court.
Argue Over Plea.
In support of his first special plea,
| Lieutenant Holland argued that the
charges against Lieutenant Andrews
| we're >purely for violation of the ma
| tional prohibition act, and cited court
| decisions to show that for such viola
| tiOns the defendant could be tried only
by United States District Court.
Capt. Humphrey Biddle. trial judge
advocate prosecuting the case. asked
in reply that the cOurt-martial bear in
mind that Lieutenant Andrews is not
being tried before that body for viola
ton of the prohibition act, but for
conduct unbecoming an officer and a
gentleman. Captain Biddle admitted
/ that the court martial could not try
| the defendant for violation of the pro-
hibitiOn act. butrsaid that such viola
ton, if such was found to be true by
! the court-martial. constituted an act
unbecOming an officer and gentle
man.
Col. Beaumont b. Buck, president
and law member of the court-martial,
after asking If there was any objection
to his denial of the defense plea, or
dered that the plea be denied.
Cites Military Cases.
Lieutenant Holland took up d
minutes in presenting his third special
plea, which was that possession and
transporting intoxicating liquor does
not constitute an act unbPcoming an
officer and gentleman. The defense
counsel cited several decisions to up
hold his plea, and argued at length in
its support.
1--WE do not deny" Lieutenant Hol-
land said. that any officer who pos
Scsses and transports intoxicating
liquor is guilty of violation of law.
However. such violation would be a
miSdemeanor and not conduct unbe-
coming an officer and a gentleman.
ANY officer who ever carried a flask
Of liquor in his pocket is guilty OF VIC
lation Of law. but / do not believe that
this court will go so far as TO hold that
any officer who ever carried a flask of
liquor in his pocket is guilty of con-
duct unbecoming an officer and a gem
tleman.'
The defense counsel then cited sew
eral definitions taken from military
law books which described conduct I'M
becoming an officer and a gentleman.
In his argument 10 the court. LieuteH-
ant Holland summarized these court
decisions in saying that conduct I'M
becoming an officer and n gentleman
involves conduct and crime that is
base. vile and dcpraved. and renders
one unfit to follow the honorable pro
fessiOn of arms.
Cite Parking Laws.
1T is against the law he said, "tO
park YOUR car for an hour in GER
tain parts OF town, but would such n
violation make an. officer base. vile,
depraved, and render him unfit to fol-
low the honorable profession Of arms!
The violation of the national prohi-
bition act is merely n violation of n
civil statute and on the first oftense
can be nothing but disdemeanor.
Lieutenant Holland then read from
the national prohibition act the sec
ton. which provides that no one shall
be tried for its violation in any court
other than a United States court.
The defense still chung TO its posi-
fion that the violation Of the prohi-
bition act constituted conduct unbe-
coming an officer and a gentleman,
The court-martial denied the special
plea.
Fined at Laredo.
The defense counsel submitted as
evidence the findings of the United
States Court of the Southern District
Of Texas. in the case Of the United
States VS.. J.. S. Andrews ct al, in