Imágenes de páginas


cases the recidivist is simply ordered to be dishonorably discharged, by order of the War Department, without the delay of a court-martial.

The following notes of cases of identification will, I think, be of interest:

Wade L. Shields enlisted June 9, 1892; discharged without honor, Co. A, Fourth Artillery, early in 1893; presented himself for enlistment at Cincinnati, August 9, 1894, with the discharge paper of Walter B. Dent, formerly a sergeant in his battery, who had been discharged October 1, 1893; pretended to be Dent and was so enlisted. On receipt of his description in the Surgeon General's Office it was ascertained that he was not Dent but was Shields, and the matter having been brought before the Adjutant General, he was accordingly discharged without honor early in 1895. The genuine Walter B. Dent reënlisted within a few weeks thereafter. Shields next appeared at Fort Warren, Mass., where he was enlisted February 20, 1896, as Lee W. Shields, having concealed his former enlistment. He was in due course identified, tried, convicted of fraudulent enlistment, and is now (April 14, 1896) serving out his sentence at Fort Columbus, New York.

John H. Anderson, a colored man, enlisted January 22, 1891, and deserted July 11, 1891, from Co. H, Twenty-fifth Infantry; was soon apprehended and discharged, and served a term at Fort Snelling, where he was set at liberty October 1, 1892. Soon after, it appears from his story, he began to drink heavily, was arrested and confined in the St Paul reformatory, where he was released in August, 1893. Failing to get work and desperate from hunger and privation, he surrendered himself as Felix Newsome, who had deserted from the Twenty-fifth Infantry in August, 1891. He was brought to trial as Newsome, plead guilty (no witnesses to identify being brought forward, in view of his plea), and sent to Leavenworth for a year and a half. Soon after his incarceration there, in January, 1894, he applied for release, setting forth the above facts. An outline card forwarded from the prison established beyond doubt that the prisoner was Anderson and not Newsome, and he was accordingly set at liberty May 26, 1894.

Michael Jones, a military convict, was released from confinement at Alcatraz island May 15, 1890. He enlisted again at Fort Douglas, Utah, July 26, 1990, as William Brady; was identified by outline card, and acknowledged his identity. Pending receipt of order directing his discharge, he deserted, and the order was revoked. He next appeared at Fort Monroe, Virginia, where he was enlisted December 22, 1890, as Michael A. Jones, concealing former service. He was identified by the cards as William Brady, alias Michael Jones, and adınitted that he was ex-convict Jones, but denied that he had enlisted and deserted as Brady at Fort Douglas. This denial he persisted in until upon trial he was confronted by witnesses from Fort Douglas who recognized him, and he was thereupon sentenced to dishonorable discharge with three years confinement at Leavenworth.

The results of the work have been as follows: From July, 1890, to April 28, 1896, 537 men have been identified, 209 as deserters, 180 as soldiers whose previous service was terminated by dishonorable discharge (with or without imprisonment), and 148 as frands of a minor grade. Of these 49 deserted before final disposition was made of their cases, and 13 others are at present awaiting final action ; 402 were discharged the service by sentence of court-martial or by orders from the Adjutant General's Office, and 73 were retained in service, of whom 9 were subsequently discharged by sentence of court-martial, 4 were discharged without honor by orders from the Adjutant General's Office, and 20 deserted.

During the calendar year 1890, 18 identifications were made; in 1891, 88; in 1892, 123; in 1893, 88; in 1894, 80; in 1895, 101 ; and in 1896, up to April 28, 39.

In addition to the 537 cases noted, 184 identifications were made of men who had left the service-deserters, 113; military convicts, 34; others, 37. Three applicants for enlistment were identified at the instance of the recruiting officer, making in all 721 identifications made.

During the calendar year 1895 the whole number of identifications was 121 (including 19 cases of men who had left the service and 1 applicant for enlistment identified at the instance of the recruiting officer). This number represented the “repeating” element of 4,929 recruits whose outline cards have been examined-i. e., of every thousand recruits enlisted from civil life 24.55 were identified through the outline-card records as deserters, military convicts, or otherwise bad characters.

It may be asked if no failures have occurred; if no men have been identified by the cards who did not prove to be the same. It cannot be said that any distinct failures have occurred. The records show that in fifteen cases the Surgeon General has reported that men were probably (not positively) identical, in which the commanding officers have stated that, after investigation, they did not believe the men to be the same. Undoubtedly some of these cases were cases of true identity; also there have been five cases in which the evidence was considered sufficient to justify trial by court-martial, but in which the court acquitted the prisoners. One of these men was dishonorably discharged by order of the War Department immediately after and one acquitted man at once deserted. The failure to convict in these cases probably arose from other causes than failure of the evidence of identity.

It will be noted that the number of identifications was greater in 1892, soon after the system went into effect, showing evidently that the knowledge of the existence of this system has deterred the class it seeks to exclude from reënlistment—a result as satisfactory as an increased number of detections would be.

It has been objected that the reception of a scar or a tattoo mark after the enlistment card is made out might lead to the nondetection of the repeater, these marks not being on the original card. This objection might have some force if only one scar or mark or the scars and marks in one region only of the body were considered, whereas the scars and marks on an average of three regions are examined, and all have value in determining the question of identity.

Again, it may be said that in process of time these cards will accumulate so as to render identification very tedious. This difliculty is in a measure met by taking out of the files those of men shown by their cards to have reached the age of 40. Thirty years is the limit of age for enlistment, and it is presumed that no recruit would be taken who was ten years older than that age.

If the number of cards in any drawer becomes unmanageable, the difficulty can be met, if necessary, by still further subdividing the regions of the body represented.

The system I have just been describing is specially adapted for army use from its simplicity and facility of application. No apparatus and no camera or elaborate personal description is required. Army recruiting parties sometimes move about from town to town and could hardly carry apparatus with them. To comply with the instructions of Bertillon in taking the eleven measurements of his system (each twice), take two photographs, record a careful description of facial peculiarities, and then of distinctive scars and marks would require more time than can ordinarily be given to each recruit at his examination.

Again, as has been pointed out by Lieutenant Colonel Greenleaf, it is well to avoid for recruits the use of a system such as that of Bertillon, which is associated with the detection of criminals. Even the present system has been objected to on the score of its similarity to that used for the identification of criminals, and still greater would be the objection if exactly the same system was used. It is not the greater personal exposure or indignity in the Bertillon system but its use with criminals that is objected to. There would be a certain advantage if a common system of identification could be used for all classes, private individuals, soldiers, sailors, and criminals, but in the present state of feeling in our community it cannot be. Some such system as that now in use in the army must for the present at least be relied on.

Lastly, the success which has attended the use of the army system, covering a period of nearly six years, is perhaps the best proof of its value. Failures to identify have been made, no doubt, but the large number of undesirable men excluded from the ranks amply justifies its inception and continuance. It met with little favor with the military authorities at first, but it is now relied on as an indispensable agency in maintaining discipline and in improving the standard of character in the ranks of the army.

SPIRITUALITY AMONG BURMESE AND SHANS.— The Burmese and Shans have an idea that a man's spirit takes the form of a butterfly, which leaves him when he is asleep or unconscious. They have a great objection to arousing any one suddenly from sleep "for fear,” as they say, “that his butterfly may not return in time.” On the return of a family from a burial, old men tie up the wrists of each one to prevent the butterfly escaping. This string remains till it falls off, worn out. Priests and chiefs are burned, as being a more honorable treatment than burial. It is said that when a woman dies pregnant her soul passes into torment, and her husband has to enter a monastery and become a priest for a certain time to secure her release.— Woodthorpe in Jour. Anthrop. Inst., August, 1896.

« AnteriorContinuar »