Evening star., 1925-11-13
Continued from First Page.)

Noi- MOrSidnd began reCitlng to the
court legal precedents regarding the
reception of evidence relating to facts
which occurred after the alleged of
tense being tried was committed. He
cited the case of Stewart versus Son
neborn, before The United States Su-
preme Court, in which il was held the
conduct of the defendant should be
viewed in the light of facts occurring
at the time Of his act and not in
the light of subsequent developments.
The trial judge advocate declared
there was no reason why subsequently
occurring facts, even though closely
associated with the alleged offense.
should impress the court IN determin-
ing what was in the mind of an al
legged offender al the time of his al
legged offense.
Il do not believe that the testimony
of Mrs. Lansdowne Will have any
weight for the reasons | have just out
lined" asserted the judge advocate,
and | therefore move that all of her
testimony given yesterday be stricken
out"
Representative Reid Immediately re
sponded in defense of Mrs. Lans-
downe's testimony. The whole state
ment for which the accused is being
tried. he pointed out, was predIcated
on the introductory phrase, lin my
opinion" and all the specifications
brought against the accused are
formed on The basis of that opinion.
.issaiIs Prosecution.
caused the accused propneSied some
thing that came true. the proof OF that
prophecy should be stricken OUT de-
manded defense counsel. col. Mitch
ell predicted that the Navy would pro-
ceed TO muZzle the Shenandoah's sur
vivors. pending 4 whitewash board
and this was proved in Mrs. Lans-
downe's testimony given yesterday.
The prosecution in this case is violat-
ing all rules of cUurtmartial procedure.
The case is not being tried under the
law and ii is proceeding outside the
Constitution. All the testimony bear
ing on the statements of the accused
should be allowed To remain in evil
dence. for the fnal decision of this
court is 10 be reviewed by higher au-
thority. This higher authority other
wise might have to cali for other evil
fence."
Representative Reid quoted from
the official manual for courtS-martial
in regard TO the wide latitude in testi-
mony that the military court should
allow, in contrast to restrictions in
the civil code. He charged that if the
Shenandoah board had concluded its
investigation and made public it's YER
dict. the prosecution would have Gag
erly cited these findings to show that
there was no whitewash.
The only law of this court de-
clared Representative Reid, lis ira
dftfon. We are proceeding outside
the Constitution. But now they are
willing to bring in the law in civil
cases in an endeavor TO have Mrs.
LansdoWne's testimony stricken out
I ou can't conScientiously nor legally
act on these specifications unless YOU
Ind whether or not the statements
made by the accused are true or false.
fair or unfair. as otherwise you can't
determine whether the statements
were intended to cause disorder, lack
of discipline or to bring discredit on
the military service"
Col. Moreland replied in vigorous
language. declaring that the accused
cant hide behind his opinion" The
Judge advocate protested against the
'unmeasured manner in which coun-
sci speaks when he refers TO disre-
gard of the rule"
Counsel for the defense" Col. More
land asserted, refers to the manual
and the rules there as being more lib
eral with regard to introduction of
evidence than in a civil court That is
true, but the rules do not say any
where that a military court should
allow the introduction of evidence
that is imrnateriaI, irrelevant, incom-
petent, improper or that occurred
10 the act alleged to have
been committed.