Trestle Bridge.—When the water is less than 4 feet deep, the trestles may be carried to their places by men wading in the stream; an abutment is formed as for an ordinary bridge; the trestles are placed with their caps parallel to the abutment sill and about 13 feet apart. When the water is too deep or too cold to allow this method to be pursued, the bridge may be constructed as follows:

The abutment sill being placed, the first trestle can usually be placed by hand; the balks are laid and covered with chesses to within 1 foot of the trestle, a roller is laid on the bridge; on this are laid two beams, from 30 to 40 feet long and 6 or 7 inches square. The trestle is placed upright, with its cap resting on these beams, to which it is firmly lashed. The pontoniers bear down on the other ends of the beams, at the same time pushing until the trestle is rolled out to the proper distance; then they suddenly release the beams, dropping the trestle into its place. The flooring balks are slid out on the two beams, adjusted, and covered with chesses.

When a boat or raft can be procured, the trestles are placed with much less labor. The boat is brought alongside the last trestle placed; two balks are laid from the bridge, resting on a saddle, or the outer gunwale of the boat; the side of the trestle-cap is laid on the balks, the legs extending over the outer gunwale of the boat. The boat is pushed off by means of the balks until it arrives at the proper position for placing the trestle, which is then righted. If it has not good bearing on the bottom, it is hauled into the boat and the legs are cut to the proper length.

The bridge may be entirely built of round timber. The caps should be from 10 to 12 inches in diameter, the legs at least 6 inches, the balks 7 or 8 inches, and faced on the lower side where they rest on the trestles, so as to bring their upper surfaces on the same plane. The covering may be of strong hurdles.

Treves, or Trier (anc. Augusta Trevirorum). A town of Rhenish Prussia, on the right bank of the Moselle, 65 miles southwest from Coblentz. Treves derives its name from the [Treviri, or Treveri] (which see). Their capital, Augusta Trevirorum, became a Roman colony in the time of Augustus, and ultimately became the headquarters of the Roman commanders on the Rhine, and a frequent residence of the emperors. Under the Franks, into whose hands it fell in 463, it continued to flourish. In 843 it passed to Lorraine; in 870 to Germany; in 895 back to Lorraine, and finally was united to Germany by the emperor Henry I. Since 1814, Treves has belonged to Prussia.

Treviri, or Treveri. A powerful people in Gallia Belgica, who were faithful allies of the Romans, and whose cavalry was the best in all Gaul.

Treviso. A fortified town of Italy, in Venice, 17 miles northwest from Venice. Treviso, the ancient Trevisium, was a free town under the Romans; and after the fall of the empire was conquered in turn by the Huns, Ostrogoths, and Lombards. Thereafter it was for a time independent, and at length, in 1344, voluntarily submitted itself to the republic of Venice.

Tria Juncta in Uno (three joined in one). The motto of the knights of the military order of the Bath, signifying “faith, hope, and charity.”

Trial. The formal examination of the matter in issue in a cause before a competent tribunal; the mode of determining a question of fact in a court of law; the examination, in legal form, of the facts in issue in a cause pending before a competent tribunal, for the purpose of determining such issue. Military trials shall be carried on only between the hours of eight in the morning and three in the afternoon, except in cases which, in the opinion of the officer ordering the court, require immediate example ([Art. 94]). No officer, non-commissioned officer, or soldier shall be tried a second time for the same offense ([Art. 102]); and no person shall be liable to be tried and punished by a general court-martial for any offense which shall appear to have been committed more than two years before the issuing of the order for such trial, unless the person, by reason of having absented himself, or some other manifest impediment, shall not have been amenable to justice within that period ([Art. 103]). All trials before courts-martial, like those in civil courts, are conducted publicly; and in order that this publicity may in no case be attended with tumult or indecorum of any kind, the court is authorized, by the Rules and Articles of War, to punish, at its discretion, all riotous and disorderly proceedings or menacing words, signs, or gestures, used in its presence ([Art. 86]). The day and place of meeting of a general court-martial having been published in orders, the officers appointed as members, and parties and witnesses, must attend accordingly. The judge-advocate, at the opening, calls over the names of the members, who arrange themselves on the right or left of the president, according to rank. The members of the court having taken their seats and disposed of any preliminary matter, the prisoner, prosecutor, and witnesses are called into court. The prisoner is attended by a guard, or by an officer, as his rank or the nature of the charge may dictate; but during the trial should be unfettered and free from any bonds or shackles, unless there be danger of escape or rescue. Accommodation is usually afforded at detached tables for the prosecutor and prisoner; also for any friend or legal adviser of the prisoner or prosecutor, whose assistance has been desired during the trial; but the prisoner only can address the court, it being an admitted maxim, that counsel are not to interfere in the proceedings, or to offer the slightest remark, much less to plead or argue. The judge-advocate, by direction of the president, first reads, in an audible voice, the order for holding the court. He then calls over the names of the members, commencing with the president, who is always the highest in rank. He then demands of the prisoner whether he has any exception or cause of challenge against any of the members present, and if he have, he is required to state his cause of challenge, confining his challenge to one member at a time ([Art. 88]). After hearing the prisoner’s objections, the president must order the court to be cleared, when the members will deliberate on and determine the relevancy or validity of the objection; the member challenged retiring during the discussion. When the prisoner and prosecutor decline to challenge any of the members, or where the causes of challenge have been disallowed, the judge-advocate proceeds to administer to the members of the court the oath prescribed by the [84th Article of War]. The oath is taken by each member holding up his right hand and repeating the words after the judge-advocate. After the oath has been administered to all the members, the president administers to the judge-advocate the particular oath of secrecy to be observed by him, as prescribed by the [85th Article of War]. No sentence of a general court-martial is complete or final until it has been duly approved. Until that period it is, strictly speaking, no more than an opinion, which is subject to alteration or revisal. In this interval, the communication of that opinion could answer no ends of justice, but might, in many cases, tend to frustrate them. The obligation to perpetual secrecy, with regard to the votes or opinions of the particular members of the court, is likewise founded on the wisest policy. The officers who compose a military tribunal are, in a great degree, dependent for their preferment on the President. They are even, in some measure, under the influence of their commander-in-chief,—considerations which might impair justice. This danger is, therefore, best obviated by the confidence and security which every member possesses, that his particular opinion is never to be divulged. Another reason is, that the individual members of the court may not be exposed to the resentment of parties and their connections, which can hardly fail to be excited by these sentences which courts-martial are obliged to award. It may be necessary for officers, in the course of their duty, daily, to associate and frequently to be sent on the same command or service, with a person against whom they have given an unfavorable vote or opinion on a court-martial. The publicity of these votes or opinions would create the most dangerous animosities, equally fatal to the peace and security of individuals, and prejudicial to the public service. The court being regularly constituted, and every preliminary form gone through, the judge-advocate, as prosecutor for the United States, desires the prisoner to listen to the charge or charges brought against him, which he reads with an audible voice, and then the prisoner is asked whether he is guilty or not guilty of the matter of accusation. The charge being sufficient, or not objected to, the prisoner must plead either: (1st) Guilty; or (2d) Specially to the jurisdiction, or in bar; or (3d) The general plea of not guilty, which is the usual course where the prisoner makes a defense. If from obstinacy and design the prisoner stands mute, or answer foreign to the purpose, the court may proceed to trial and judgment, as if the prisoner had regularly pleaded not guilty ([Art. 89]); but if the prisoner plead guilty, the court will proceed to determine what punishment shall be awarded, and to pronounce sentence thereon. Preparatory to this, in all cases where the punishment of the offense charged is discretionary, and especially where the discretion includes a wide range and great variety of punishment, and the specifications do not show all the circumstances attending the offense, the court should receive and report, in its proceedings, any evidence the judge-advocate may offer, for the purpose of illustrating the actual character of the offense, notwithstanding the party accused may have pleaded guilty; such evidence being necessary to an enlightened exercise of the discretion of the court, in measuring the punishment, as well as for the approving authority. If there be any exception to this rule, it is where the specification is so full and precise as to disclose all the circumstances of mitigation or aggravation which accompany the offense. When that is the case, or when the punishment is fixed, and no discretion is allowed, explanatory testimony cannot be needed. Special pleas are either to the jurisdiction of the court or in bar of the charge. If an officer or soldier be arraigned by a court not legally constituted, either as to the authority by which it is assembled, or as to the number and rank of its members, or other similar causes, a prisoner may except to the jurisdiction of the court-martial. Special pleas in bar go to the merits of the case, and set forth a reason why, even admitting the charge to be true, it should be dismissed, and the prisoner discharged. A former acquittal or conviction of the same offense would obviously be a valid bar, except in case of appeal from a regimental to a general court-martial. Though the facts in issue should be charged to have happened more than two years prior to the date of the order for the assembling of the court-martial, yet it is not the province of the court, unless objection be made, to inquire into the cause of the impediment in the outset. It would be to presume the illegality of the court, whereas the court should assume that manifest impediment to earlier trial did exist, and leave the facts to be developed by witnesses in the ordinary course. A pardon may be pleaded in bar. If full, it at once destroys the end and purpose of the charge, by remitting that punishment which the prosecution seeks to inflict; if conditional, the performance of the condition must be known; thus a soldier arraigned for desertion, must plead a general pardon, and prove that he surrendered himself within the stipulated period. No officer or soldier, being acquitted or convicted of an offense, is liable to be tried a second time for the same. But this provision applies solely to trials for the same incidental act and crime, and to such persons as have, in the first instance, been legally tried. If any irregularity take place on the trial rendering it illegal and void, the prisoner must be discharged, and be regarded as standing in the same situation as before the commencement of these illegal proceedings. The same charge may, therefore, be again preferred against the prisoner who cannot plead the previous illegal trial in bar. A prisoner cannot plead in bar that he has not been furnished with a copy of the charges, or that the copy furnished him differed from that on which he had been arraigned. It is customary and proper to furnish him with a correct copy, but the omission shall not make void, though it may postpone the trial. If the special plea in bar be such that, if true, the charge should be dismissed and the prisoner discharged, the judge-advocate should be called on to answer it. If he does not admit it to be true, the prisoner must produce evidence to the points alleged therein; and if, on deliberation, the plea be found true, the facts being recorded, the court will adjourn and the president submit the proceedings to the officer by whose order the court was convened, with a view to the immediate discharge of the prisoner. The ordinary plea is not guilty, in which case the trial proceeds. The judge-advocate cautions all witnesses on the trial to withdraw, and to return to court only on being called. He then proceeds to the examination of witnesses, and to the reading and proof of any written evidence he may have to bring forward. After a prisoner has been arraigned on specific charges, it is irregular for a court-martial to admit any additional charge against him, even though he may not have entered on his defense. The trial on the charges first preferred must be regularly concluded, when, if necessary, the prisoner may be tried on any further accusation brought against him. On the trial of cases not capital, before courts-martial, the deposition of witnesses not in the line or staff of the army may be taken before some justice of the peace, and read in evidence, provided the prosecutor and person accused are present at the same, or are duly notified thereof. The examination of witnesses is invariably in the presence of the court; because the countenance, looks, and gestures of a witness add to, or take away from, the weight of his testimony. It is usually by interrogation, sometimes by narration; in either case, the judge-advocate records the evidence, as nearly as possible, in the express words of the witness. All evidence, whatever, should be recorded on the proceedings, in the order in which it is received by the court. A question to a witness is registered before enunciation; when once entered, it cannot be expunged, except by the consent of the parties before the court; if not permitted to be put to the witness, it still appears on the proceedings accompanied by the decision of the court. The examination-in-chief of each particular witness being ended, the cross-examination usually follows, though it is optional with the prisoner to defer it to the final close of the examination-in-chief. The re-examination by the prosecutor, on such new points as the prisoner may have made, succeeds the cross-examination, and finally, the court puts such questions as in its judgment may tend to elicit the truth. It is customary, when deemed necessary by the court, or desired by a witness, to read over to him, immediately before he leaves the court, the record of his evidence, which he is desired to correct if erroneous, and, with this view, any remark or explanation is entered upon the proceedings. No erasure or obliteration is, however, admitted, as it is essentially necessary that the authority which has to review the sentence should have the most ample means of judging, not only of any discrepancy in the statements of a witness, but of any incident which may be made the subject of remark, by either party in addressing the court. Although a list of witnesses, summoned by the judge-advocate, is furnished to the court on assembling, it is not held imperative on the prosecutor to examine such witnesses; if he should not do so, however, the prisoner has a right to call any of them. Should the prisoner, having closed his cross-examination, think proper subsequently to recall a prosecutor’s witness in his defense, the examination is held to be in chief, and the witness is subject to cross-examination by the prosecutor. Although either party may have concluded his case, or the regular examination of a witness, yet should a material question have been omitted, it is usually submitted by the party to the president, for the consideration of the court, which generally permits it to be put. The prisoner being placed on his defense, may proceed at once to the examination of witnesses: firstly, to meet the charge; and, secondly, to speak as to character, reserving his address to the court until the conclusion of such examination. The prisoner having finished the examination-in-chief of each witness, the prosecution cross-examines; the prisoner re-examines to the extent allowed to the prosecutor, that is, on such new points as the cross-examination may have touched on, and the court puts any questions deemed necessary. The prisoner having finally closed his examination of witnesses, and selecting this period to address the court, offers such statement or argument as he may deem conducive to weaken the force of the prosecution, by placing his conduct in the most favorable light, accounting for or palliating facts, confuting or removing any imputation as to motives; answering the arguments of the prosecutor, contrasting, comparing, and commenting on any contradictory evidence; summing up the evidence on both sides where the result promises to favor the defense, and finally, presenting his deductions therefrom. The utmost liberty consistent with the interest of parties not before the court and with the respect due to the court itself should, at all times, be allowed a prisoner. As he has an undoubted right to impeach, by evidence, the character of the witnesses brought against him, so he is justified in contrasting and remarking on their testimony, and on the motives by which they, or the prosecutor, may have been influenced. All coarse and insulting language is, however, to be avoided, nor ought invective to be indulged in, as the most pointed evidence may be couched in the most decorous language. The court will prevent the prisoner from adverting to parties not before the court, or only alluded to in evidence, further than may be actually necessary to his own exculpation. It may sometimes happen that the party accused may find it absolutely necessary, in defense of himself, to throw blame and even criminality on others, who are no parties to the trial; nor can a prisoner be refused that liberty, which is essential to his own justification. It is sufficient for the party aggrieved that the law can furnish ample redress against all calumnious or unjust accusations. The court is bound to hear whatever address, in his defense, the accused may think fit to offer, not being in itself contemptuous or disrespectful. It is competent to a court, if it think proper, to caution the prisoner as he proceeds, that, in its opinion, such a line of defense as he may be pursuing would probably not weigh with the court, nor operate in his favor; but, to decide against hearing him state arguments, which, notwithstanding such caution, he might persist in putting forward, as grounds of justification, or extenuation (such arguments not being illegal in themselves), is going beyond what any court would be warranted in doing. It occasionally happens that, on presenting to the court a written address, the prisoner is unequal to the task of reading it, from indisposition or nervous excitement; on such occasions, the judge-advocate is sometimes requested by the president to read it; but, as the impression which might be anticipated to be made by it may, in the judgment of the prisoner, be effected more or less by the manner of its delivery, courts-martial generally feel disposed to concede to the accused the indulgence of permitting it to be read by any friend named by him, particularly if that friend be a military man, or if the judge-advocate be the actual prosecutor. Courts-martial are particularly guarded in adhering to the custom of resisting every attempt on the part of counsel to address them. A lawyer is not recognized by a court-martial, though his presence is tolerated, as a friend of the prisoner, to assist him by advice in preparing questions for witnesses, in taking notes and shaping his defense. The prisoner having closed his defense, the prosecutor is entitled to reply, when witnesses have been examined on the defense, or where new facts are opened in the address. Thus, though no evidence may be brought forward by the prisoner, yet should he advert to any case, and, by drawing a parallel, attempt to draw his justification from it, the prosecutor will be permitted to observe on the case so cited. When the court allows the prosecutor to reply, it generally grants him a reasonable time to prepare it; and, upon his reading it, the trial ceases. Should the prisoner have examined witnesses to points not touched on in the prosecution, or should he have entered on an examination impeaching the credibility of the prosecutor’s evidence, the prosecutor is allowed to examine witnesses to the new matter; the court being careful to confine him within the limits of this rule, which extends to the re-establishing the character of his witnesses, to impeaching those of the defense, and to rebutting the new matter brought forward by the prisoner, supported by evidence. He cannot be allowed to examine on any points which, in their nature, he might have foreseen previously to the defense of the prisoner. The prosecutor will not be permitted to bring forward evidence to rebut or counteract the effect of matter elicited by his own cross-examination; but is strictly confined to new matter introduced by the prisoner, and supported by his examination-in-chief. A defense resting on motives, or qualifying the imputation attaching to facts, generally lets in evidence in reply; as, in such cases, the prisoner usually adverts, by evidence, to matter which it would have been impossible for the prosecutor to anticipate. The admissibility of evidence, in reply, may generally be determined by the answer to the questions: Could the prosecutor have foreseen this? Is it evidently new matter? Is the object of the further inquiry to re-establish the character of the witnesses impeached by evidence (not by declamation) in the course of the defense, or is it to impeach the character of the prisoner’s witnesses? Cross-examination of such new witnesses, to an extent limited by the examination-in-chief, that is, confined to such points or matter as the prosecutor shall have examined on, is allowed on the part of the prisoner.

Triangles. A wooden instrument consisting of three poles so fastened at the top that they may spread at bottom in a triangular form, and by means of spikes affixed to each pole, remain firm in the earth. An iron bar, breast-high, goes across one side of the triangle. The triangles were used in some regiments for the purpose of inflicting military punishment when corporeal chastisement was much in vogue.