The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1925-08-07
ARMY'S TYRANNY
is EXPOSED IN
CROUCH APPEAL
Court Martial Unfit to
Act, Judge Told
fContlnued from page u

/ ANANoOo " NAoSANoNs
courtmartial Unfit.
Emphatic objection and protest was
made by Patterson to the refusal Of
the authorities to produce Crouch in
court, but objection overruled and
case ordered to pleadings. Patterson
then proceeded with hts arguments,
presenting the case clearly and fore
IDLY, with citations of authority In
answer to the request of the court to
show wherein the federal district
court had jurisdiction Patterson re-
ferred to many precedent cases and
pointed out that the court stood as
bulwark between the constitutional
rights of citizens and the abuse Of
military power,
He challenged the competence Of
the alleged courtmartial and the
qualifications Of it's members on the
howing of procedure in the tran
cript and the conduct of the ''trial,"
nd declared that the single fact that
hey had pronounced a sentence of 40
ears at hard labor on a mere boy
Who was not even charged with any
rhine or violation of any law of the
| United States was sufficient proof o!
their prejudice to disqualify them and
render void the proceedings Of the
ccurtmartial under the due process
of law" clause in the constitution.
He analysed the charges and speci-
| fications and showed that nowhere
was any specific act charged That was
in itself criminal, unlawful or
wrong. He showed that the laws of
the territory of Hawaii regarding
secret organizations cannot be held
apply to a military reservation,
which is extra-territorial and under
federal Jurisdiction alone; and even
if the law had applied, It only re-
lated to a misdemeanor that was pun
ishable by three months imprson-
iment
He showed by precedent and au-
thority that when an Indictment or
charge fails to state facts sufficient
TO constitute an offense tie courts
have no jurisdiction over the person
Of the accused, and when unlawfully
'estrained of his liberty under de-
cree of any tribunal adjudged under
UGH circumstances the remedy lies
7 a writ of habeas corpust issued out
another court.
Legitimate Expression OF Opinion.
He showed that the acts charged
were not acts of offense but merely
Expressions of opinion and legitimate
acts the right of which is guaranteed
under the constitution. and that the
acts charged as offenses were thus
acts over which the courtmartial had
no jurisdiction. He showed that the
prejudice and animus against the &C
cused was such as to create an atmos-
phere surrounding the proceedings
which rendered fair and Impartial
trial impossible and thus deprive him
of his liberty without due process OF
law as guaranteed by the constitution
of the United States.
Intolerance and 6isotry Of Officers.
He closed the main argument with
bitter arraignment of the intoler'
ance and bigotry CT the army officials
who had thus abused their power by
the savage persecution of an innocent
boy, whose only offense was that he
held opinions different from then
own and had dared to express them
openly.
Col. Frederick M. Brown appeared
for the army and defended the action
of the courtmartial. He evaded the
fact of the original 4O-year sentence
by showing that reviewing authorities
had reduced it to three years, which
he held was a proper sentence. His
argument was confined chiefly TO an
effort to show that the courtmartial
had full and complete jurisdiction
and that the federal court mad nc
jurisdiction to step in between those
who sought to enforce the law and a
man who had deliberately violated it,
Many OF the contentious Of the pc.
titioner he admitted, but insisted that
all formality had been complied with
in the trial and that it was fair and
impartial one and expressed the
Judgment of the tribunal by law to
administer justice in the army.
Col. Brown stressed lthe alleged
revolutionary character OF the propa-
ganda spread by Crouch and tried to
show that his remark about the
overthrow OF the government was a
deliberate advocacy OF force and VIC
lence. He concluded his, argument in
the afternoon of July 18th.
The case has occupied the court for
two days, July 16 and II. and was
continued to July 30. when Patterson
will make brief rebuttal.
~~~~~~~~~~--~>-~