The Court-Martial That Laughed Up Its Sleeve

“This court-martial has been fixed to let off Haines on the plea of no jurisdiction,” said one of the military officers this morning. “The precedent was fixed at Seattle a few weeks ago in the trial of Captain Jones, of the Port Townsend company. That court-martial said it had no jurisdiction in the Jones case in order that the same thing could be worked in the Haines matter. The Haines men are laughing up their sleeves at the idea of conviction.”

The doors of the military court were closed to the public during the morning, and the visiting militia officers were anything but pleased. The first question raised by counsel for the accused was as to the organization of the court. It was charged that it had not occurred in due form, that the orders convening the court were not fully read, that the accused was not asked whether he had any objection to any members of the court prior to swearing them, and that there was an entire absence of a record of any proceedings. On these grounds the court was reorganized. It was stipulated between the judge advocate and counsel for the accused that the record of yesterday’s proceedings should be submitted at an adjourned session this afternoon, and that any objections to the record could then be taken, the same as if the record had been presented and read. Counsel for the accused is determined to have everything minute and the record complete before the case is proceeded with.

Colonel Pike, one of the members of the court, was challenged on the ground that he is inferior in rank to the accused, and in a direct line of promotion—that is, were anything to happen to General Curry, as the head of the brigade, and Colonel Haines were to be removed, Colonel Pike would be the next in rank and would assume command of the brigade. This was argued as a strong point. The articles of war provide that when it can be avoided no inferior should sit on the court. It was argued that in this case it can be avoided by removing Colonel Pike, as an inferior officer to the accused, and still leave six members on the court, five being the minimum limit in the composition of the court, thus leaving a sufficient number to proceed with the trial. The penalty for a violation of the sixty-first article of war is dismissal from the service. No lighter sentence can be imposed, and Winthrop, the highest military authority in the country, states that when the penalty is dismissal from service, it is safer, and in the interests of justice, that an inferior officer should be excused.

Colonel Pike was also challenged on the charge that he had expressed an opinion in the matter since being detailed on the court. The accused and the challenged party then left the court while the matter was being discussed, and the result was that Colonel Pike was released from the court.

There is now no question that the court will continue in session until Monday at the earliest. Haines’ friends are confident that the case will not come to trial, and even though it should, his one strong point of defense will be the lack of jurisdiction, and on this point it will be carried to the civil courts.

This afternoon Colonel Haines was arraigned and the charges against him were read, but counsel for the accused claimed that the charges served upon Colonel Haines were not the same as those read by the court, the difference being that the name of Arthur Empy, clerk at the hotel, was not contained in the original copy. Counsel for the defense was willing to proceed with the trial upon the charges served, providing the name of Arthur Empy was withdrawn and that such facts be included in the records of the proceedings. The judge advocate reserves the right to introduce the last-named person upon the affidavit that he is a material witness. This was satisfactory to the defense. The charges were then read, charging Col. J. C. Haines with the use of foul and abusive language without just cause or provocation, while discussing military matters. Counsel for the accused entered a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground that the accused was not amenable to military law, nor in the performance of any military duty at the time and place stated in the charge; that the charges do not constitute a military offense. Other grounds were mentioned in the plea. The plea was being entered at the hour of going to press.

Many strong authorities were cited in support of the plea.

There was a lengthy discussion at the opening of court as to just what portion of the proceedings should be recorded by the stenographer, W. G. Johnson. This was satisfactorily settled and the stenographer sworn.