Ungentlemanly Acts: The Army's Notorious Incest Trial

by Louise Barnett

  This reply, a printed document of 81 pages full of falsehoods, and accompanied by several ex parte statements from officers as to the good character of Capt. Geddes, in which all allusion to his moral habits is avoided, went before what is called “the revising authority” along with the record, and according to Capt. Geddes had its weight with the “revising authority” when preparing an opinion for the guidance of the revising authority on final action.

  G.C.M. Order No. 66, series of 1879, shows that the findings and sentence were disapproved on the ground of certain rulings of the Court thought to be erroneous, and in no way effecting [sic] the facts in issue. There was barely an expression of doubt by the “revising authority” as to the findings being fully sustained by the evidence.

  Thus this grave case, in which one of two officers must have been guilty of infamous crime, was disposed of, and the one pronounced guilty by two sets of officers in succession, was restored to duty without censure, and the other officer after the investigation was ended was thought worthy to be placed on the retired list.

  Public sentiment in the military circles to which Capt. Geddes returned, and indeed in the Army generally, was not satisfied, so that the Department Commander found it advisable to isolate Captain Geddes’ Company in order to remove him from contact with others who were unwilling to be associated with him. Of this Capt. Geddes complains as a grievance.

  The outcome of this trial was not satisfactory to the officers in the Department of Texas, since it restored to association with them a man pronounced worthy of a criminal’s cell, and the charges now, under consideration are the result.

  The important charge is that of perjury in having sworn falsely in his own defense in the previous trial, and the fundamental facts are the same that were investigated on the previous trial.

  With regard to this charge, a lawful oath was regularly administered to him, and he testified knowingly and willingly in a matter material to the issue then being tried. The only question to be determined is whether his testimony was true or false. If true, then Lieut. Orleman should be put out of the Army and turned over to the civil authorities for punishment. If false, Capt. Geddes deserves the severest punishment.

  On one side there will be the oath and testimony of Capt. Geddes. In denial of this, the evidence of Lieut. Orleman and Miss Orleman. Then the plan of the building will be exhibited to show the improbability if not absolute impossibility of Capt. Geddes having heard the conversation between Lieut. Orleman and his daughter which he claims to have heard, or seen what he claims to have seen. If he saw what he relates, he must have made an eavesdropper of himself, going far out of his way to put himself at the window of Lieut. Orleman’s bedroom; and even then few believe in the possibility of his obtaining the view he claims to have had. These will be the questions for the Court to decide upon.

  Beyond this there will be the testimony of two distinguished Surgeons of the Army, whose reputation either as men of medical experience or as gentlemen of integrity is not surpassed, asserting that, at the time of Captain Geddes’ trial, Miss Orleman carried on her person the most undoubted evidence of her virginity, and that she has never had connection with any man.

  The theory of the defense on the trial was that Lieut. Orleman and his daughter had commenced this vile intercourse when she was but 13 years of age, and that it had been kept up during 5 years until she was 18, and while the one act of intercourse which Capt. Geddes says he witnessed might have left no marks which experts could detect, it is not possible that doctors could be deceived had these relations been continued for a length of time.

  This will be the matter to be decided on so far as the charge of perjury is concerned.

  The accusation of adultery with Mrs. McLaughlen I advised should be charged as conduct to the prejudice of military discipline, and not as conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, for the latter charge is often regarded as covering only some few crimes of a very degrading character, and not as embracing all the acts which an officer should not commit, and a gentleman would not. Col. Andrews failed to see that a majority of the officers of a Court might change the finding and thus weaken the force of the case, and he declined to modify the charge.

  As Col. McLaughlen was and is the person most injured in this affair, it seemed to me that the General might wish to know his wishes in regard to having it referred to a Court Martial for trial. With this in view, I went to Fort Davis to confer with Col. McLaughlen. I found that he had not sought redress for his wrongs before the Civil Tribunals, and that in consideration of the feelings of his wife’s relatives, he declined to become prosecutor before a Military Court, so long as she should remain quietly with her people and deported herself properly; but he was most anxious that Capt. Geddes should be brought to trial by some one else, and was desirous of telling all that he knew regarding the case.

  His testimony will show conclusively that the child to which Mrs. McLaughlen gave birth after reaching New York was not his, and he will testify to many circumstances convincing him that Capt. Geddes is its father. He will likewise testify that his wife, Mrs. McLaughlen, did not dispute or deny that Geddes was the parent when he charged it upon her that such was the case.

  Numerous witnesses can be found to testify to this improper and suspicious intimacy between Capt. Geddes and Mrs. McLaughlen. One of these, a white woman, Mrs. Stewart, laundress in Capt. Bentyoni’s [sic] company and married to a colored sergeant of the company.

  Capt. Geddes, anticipating that this woman would be a witness against him, asked me to examine certain citizen friends of his—one of them the local judge—as to her character and want of credibility on the ground that she was living in adultery with a negro. This I learned to be untrue, as the woman had been married twice to this man, once by a Protestant preacher and once by a Catholic priest with the consent of the Captain of the company. Since my return from Texas, Captain Geddes informs me in a letter that she has been indicted in the Texas Courts for miscegenation, which if true, has been done without doubt at his instance to break down her testimony as a witness against him and Mrs. McLaughlen.

  The additional charge of conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman in having seduced the Mexican Josephine Nevares, I likewise recommended should be charged as to the prejudice of discipline, as the criminal intercourse of an officer with any female belonging to a household in the garrison—even the servant of the trader—must be destructive of discipline and order. The accusation that he made use of violence in the specification does not seem to me to comport well with the term seduce; and as the girl is now married to a soldier, I would recommend that this charge be dropped, leaving the girl to find her redress in Civil Courts, unless it be thought desirable to try it in order more clearly to display the character of Capt. Geddes as a libertine.

  Most respectfully

  Your obedient servant,

  (signed)

  Brevet Major General, Asst. Inspr. Genl.

  APPENDIX C

  Documents Relating to the Reinstatement of Andrew Geddes

  1. Petition of Officers of the Twenty-fifth U.S. Infantry Against the Reinstatement of Andrew Geddes

  Fort Randall D.T.

  January 30, 1882

  To

  The President of the United States

  Washington, D.C.

  (Through Channels)

  Sir

  Having been informed through the public press that Andrew Geddes has attempted to be re-instated in his commission in the Army, we, the undersigned, respectfully ask that before any action in his favor be taken the following facts be considered.

  Andrew Geddes during his career in the Army was dismissed from the service by sentence of General Courts Martial in 1872, again in 1879, and in 1880. (See G.C.A.G.O., A.G.O. No. 28 of 1872, No. 66 of 1879, and No. 64 of 1880)

  To again restore him to the service would be an encouragement to the vicious, and a great injustice to the honorable gentlemen who have to serve with him, and to the soldiers w
ho have to serve under him.

  Owing to his scandalously unusual conduct, only a small part of which is recorded in the proceedings before the General Court Martial published in 1879 no officer in the Army could permit the ladies of his family to in any way recognize Andrew Geddes, and a majority of the officers would hold no other but necessary official relations with him.

  That such conditions cannot be otherwise but to the disadvantage of the service cannot be denied.

  That the sentences of Courts Martial are just and proper, when resulting in the removal from the service of the offender, the sequels of the restoration to it, by legislative and executive action, of Sam. K. Thompson, 25th Infantry, T. J. Spencer and Geo. A. Armes, 10th Cavalry, E. R. Clark, 10th Infantry, and others abundantly establish, as all of these persons have again been dismissed, though some of them still hold their commissions through the intervention of executive clemency.

  As the person seeking restoration makes use of everything seemingly in his favor, we take these means of respectfully inviting attention to the other side of the case.

  Charles Bentzoni, Capt 25th Infantry

  Geo. L. Andrews, Col. 25th Infy, Comdg Regiment

  C. L. Hodges, 1Lt 25 Inf.

  Henry P. Ritzius 1Lt 25 Infy

  Gaines Lawson Capt 25th Infantry

  H. B. Quimby, Capt 25th Infantry

  D. B. Wilson, iLt & Adjt 25th Inf

  2. Geddes’s Appeal to the Congressional Committee on Military Affairs for Reinstatement

  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

  OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CLERK, Washington,, D.C., February, 1899.

  The Honorable COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS.

  GENTLEMEN: I have the honor to submit the following:

  I was dismissed, to date December 31, 1880, after a service of nearly nineteen years, at which time I held the rank of captain, Twenty-fifth United States Infantry, and brevet major, United States Army. During all those years I performed many and varied duties, and in all truth can say that I never failed in any respect to discharge them faithfully, zealously, capably, and to the entire satisfaction of my superiors.

  I enlisted at the age of 16 in Company K, First Iowa Volunteer Infantry, in April, 1861, and served until the muster out of that regiment, the latter part of August, 1861. Was present at the battle of Wilsons Creek, Mo., and very close by General Lyon when he fell, mortally wounded, and with a few others hauled off guns of Totten’s Battery (horses having been shot) at the close of that hard-fought and heroic battle. October I , 1861, I was unanimously elected captain of Company D, Eighty Iowa Volunteer Infantry—probably the youngest officer of that rank in the United States service. Served in that capacity for more than three years, when I was unanimously elected lieutenant-colonel of my regiment by the officers—the youngest officer of that rank in the United States service. Although there was a vacancy I could not muster in as colonel, the regiment being reduced by active and long service below the minimum required by law. Commanded regiment and took it home to Davenport, Iowa, for final pay and muster out May 6, 1866, after a service of five years. Was at Shiloh, Jackson, Vicksburg, Memphis, Spanish Fort, and many other minor engagements, and always at the front. Was several times mentioned in orders for gallantry; was a prisoner of war for more than six months and suffered unspeakable cruelty at Tuscaloosa, Ala., under Wirz, and at Macon and Madison, Ga., and in “Libby.” At Madison, for attempting to escape, was threatened with death, taken to a murderer’s dungeon, kept there for two weeks, and taken out in a starved and half-dead condition.

  While yet in my teens was chief of ordnance of District of West Tennessee on General Washburn’s staff, aide-de-camp to Gen. E. A. Carr, and several times assistant adjutant-general of division. In the regular service twice saved large commands of troops at risk of my own life, and did other perilous service.

  Had five brothers in Iowa regiments, all of good and even distinguished service. In July, 1867, appointed first lieutenant in the Regular Army, and did active and serious service receiving high recommendation from commanding officers. (See Gen. William R. Shafter’s letters herewith, marked “A;” Colonel Young’s, Third United States Cavalry, and others, marked, respectively, “B,” “C.”)

  My dismissal was the result of charges trumped up, without any foundation in fact, maliciously concocted, and the outcome of as despicable, unjust, relentless, and bitter a persecution as ever disgraced the annals of our Army or any other. As was said at the time, it was better to sacrifice me than give publicity to an army scandal by trying and punishing the very party who had been guilty of incest with his own daughter. I was victimized; the other (God save the mark!) honorably retired. It was an infinite, dastardly outrage.

  The officer who preferred the charges against me, on which I was dismissed, threatened, after the President had disapproved the proceedings, findings, and sentence in the former case, that he would follow me until he “did me up.” His charges were false and born of malice. The trial was a mockery, the result a travesty upon justice, and an indelible wrong. I was misled and curtailed in my defense. There were several witnesses whose testimony was material and pertinent; but a prominent member of the court asked if the evidence of these witnesses would be in the same line as that already in—to the effect that I was not under influence of liquor, as charged—and when the accused answered yes, he said it would only be a waste of the time of the court, and that he was satisfied. I concluded that he was satisfied of my innocence and that the other members were so, too; therefore did not call these material witnesses. This evidence would have established the proof of my innocence beyond any question; it would have given an overwhelming preponderance in my behalf. I consider and submit that this was a great wrong. After sentence was promulgated I secured the affidavits of these witnesses, which are herewith submitted, marked “K”—eleven depositions.

  This court was bent on conviction. Congressman Perkins’s paper at the time gave as an item that members of the court in Sioux City, en route to Yankton, expressed the opinion that it would probably go hard with Geddes on account of a former trial in Texas. This alone disqualified them to sit on the trial. I was refused a reasonable time to secure counsel. (See Judge Shannon’s letter, marked “F.”)

  Particular attention is called to the orders publishing the findings and sentence. Two specifications charge me with drunkenness, not only on the same day and date, but within fifteen minutes of each other; the fact being that I passed from one duty to the other in the time mentioned, barely having time to change my uniform. I was found “guilty” of the latter and “not guilty” of the former charge. The absurdity of the thing is apparent.

  During these last eighteen years I have suffered under this great wrong and injustice. Not an hour or day all those years that this outrage and disgrace have not been present; not a night that I have not in prayer appealed to Him that this burning stigma might be wiped from my name. It has covered me as with a pall of blackest night. In attempts to secure honorable position it has, Banquo like, risen to thrust me back and hold me down. It broke an aged, beloved, and Christian father’s heart. It has deeply hurt and pained dearly loved sisters, brothers, and friends, but, thank God, never alienated their affection and respect, for they have ever believed in my innocence, truth, and manliness. Were I gifted with the language of a Milton or Macaulay I could not express the depth of the bitter humiliation and mortification of those eighteen long, saddened, heavy-laden years. Death has taken father, mother, brothers, sisters, a son, and two lovely little daughters. I believe that an all-merciful God has sustained me with the consciousness of my innocence and truth.

  I was proud of my profession. My family for generations were soldiers. From 16 to 35 I had given my every thought to love of our flag and its service. Therefore it is that I appeal to the Congress and to the President to right as far as possible this great wrong; to take away from an honored name this blot; to at least, now that I am marching the down-grade of life to the inevitable �
�taps,” by this act of clemency, kindness, and justice make the forced march as light and easy as possible, enabling me at last to leave to wife and children a name cleared of dishonor and stain.

  Had I remained in service my rank would be that of major or lieutenant-colonel, with a fair probability, considering my age, of becoming a colonel before retiring age of 64.

  I also call your attention to Special Orders, No. I, Headquarters Union Veteran Legion of the United States, herewith marked “Exhibit G.”

  With depth of feeling inexpressible, I appeal to you to remove this life sentence.

  Very respectfully,

  ANDREW GEDDES,

  Chief Clerk Department of Agriculture.

  3. General William Shafter’s Recommendation of Geddes for Reinstatement

  HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA,

  San Francisco:, Cal., December 24, 1897.

  SIR: I understand that an effort will be made by the friends of Col. Andrew Geddes, now chief clerk, Department of Agriculture, and late captain, Twenty-fifth Infantry, for reinstatement to his former rank in the Army.

  Colonel Geddes served under me and under my observation for several years in Texas, both in garrison and in the field. In the field he was one of my most trusted officers, energetic and fearless, and always ready for any duty, no matter how hazardous. On one occasion, in 1875, while scouting under my orders, he swam the Pecos when it was much swollen and then rode 60 miles to Fort Stockton to obtain imperatively needed supplies. On the same expedition, with a detachment of two companies, he followed an Indian trail from the center of the Staked Plains, near the head of Brazos River, for nearly 500 miles, and captured and killed the entire party he was pursuing when within a few miles of the Mexican border, toward which they were fleeing.