Evening star., 1929-06-30
Justice Holds Officer Should
Be Given Due Hearing
by Military Tribunal.
COUNSEL PREPARES
TO DEMAND TRIAL
Whether Court Martial or Inquiry
Will Be Requested Has Not
Been Determined.

| officer be given the same opportunity
to be heard before regularly consti-
tuted military tribunal as is given an
officer of the Regular Army, before he
can be dismissed, Justice Wendell Phil
| lips Stafford yesterday handed down
his opinion in the long-standing suit
instituted by Lieut.. Col. Harry E. Glad
| man, executive officer of the 121st
Regiment of Engineers, local National
Guard, against National Guard officers
and War Department oflcials, attack
ing his dismissal from the local Guard
without hearing.
While the opinion denies the COM
| mon law writ of certiorari, 1t was
said that the Judgment will not be
docketed until September 18 next. In
| order to give Col. Gladman an oppor-
tunity to apply to the military author
tiles for either court-martial or q
court Of inquiry, at which the oficer
would be given an opportunity to ap-
pear and defend any cause which the
National Guard officials believe they
might have against him.
Definite Course Undetermined.
H. Winship Wheatley, counsel for Col
Gladman, said that letters would be
the military oflcials, demanding the
right to be heard, which Justice Staf-
ford suggested would be due process Of
law In his case. Whether it will be
a request for a court-martial or a court
of inquiry had not been determined
last night.
II the military authorities refuse to
comply with the demand, then, it was
said, the matter again will be referred
to the civil court, for consideration
before the docketing of the judgment.
The defendants named In the suit
are: Maj. Gen. Greed c. Hammond,
chief Of the Militia Bureau of the War
Department; Maj Gen. Anton Stephan,
commanding the local Guard; Frederic
H. Smith, adjutant general Of the local
Guard, and Dwight r. Davis, as Sec
retary of War.
Justice Stafford, in his opinion, sets
out the various statutes one column
dealing with the dismissal Of Regular
Army officers and the other dealing
with National Guard officers, and asks
"Is the fact that the national defense
act fails to- provide for such appearance
and hearing conclusive as an affirma-
tive statement that Congress intended
a National Guard off1cer should not
have the right to such hearing before
disnnisSal?"
"A comparison of the acts govern
ing the various methods Of dismissine
oficers of the National Guard and
officers Of the Regular Army shows that
the l1sth article Of war applies equally
in both cases." Justice Stafford says
"Forty-firSt statute. 773, provides that
the President shall convene a board
each year for the purpose Of classifying
officers Of the Regular Army to deter
mine which officers shall be dismissed
from the service, while section SO OF
the national defense act provides that
the Secretary Of War shall cause
similar inspection of National Guard
officers.
Fails to Provide Specifically.
"Thus 1t seems" Justice Stadord's
opinion continues, that with one or
two exceptions, not material here, no
oficer of the Regular Army may be
dismissed except after an opportunity
for an appearance and hearing. While
similar agencies are provided for
securing dismissal of a National Guard
off1cer Congress has not provided spe-
cifically for a hearing before such dis
miSsal.
If due process requires an oppor-
tunity for an appearance and hear
ing before an officer in the Regular
Army can be dismissed why Is any
thing less than, that due process when
1t is sought to dismiss an officer of the
National Guard of the District Of Co.
lumbla when both the Regular Army
and the National Guard of the District
of Columbia are part Of the Army Of
the United States under the provisions
of the National defense act?
1T would seem therefore that due
process requires an opportunity for a
hearing before an officer Of the National
Guard of the District of Columbia can
be dismissed from the service notwith-
standing that there is no specific pro-
vision therefore"
He concludes by saying that If due
process requires that a National Guard
ofI1cer be accorded hearing before dis
missal, and he Is the subject Of dis
missal order of the Secretary of War,
his remedy seems to be an application
to the Secretary Of War for hearing
rather than an application to q law
court for writ of certiorari.
Was Given Honorable Discharge.
Col. Gladman was honorably dis
charged in an order issued by Gen.
Stephan on August 81 last, following
star chamber proceedings before an
officer of the Inspector Generals De-
partment of the Army. witnesses,
among them officers Of the local Guard,
appeared, but Col. Gladman was not
allowed to appear.
Immediately upon receipt Of the
order of the local Guard, and a notice
from the Militia Bureau of the War De.
partment notifying him that his status
had been changed on the records there,
he instituted proceedings in the Dis
trict Supreme Court, seeking to have
,, the whole case certified there, and the
proceeding quashed.
Pending a decision on the case, his
position as executive, officer Of the
local Engineer regiment has not been
filled. The case has attracted consid-
erable attention in military circles. as
1t is the first time that such dis
miSSal has been contested.