I 
 
 ^t;t'v 
 
 A 
 
University of California. 
 
 FROM THE LIBRARY Ol' 
 
 DR. FRANCIS LIEBICR, 
 
 Profesior of History and Law in Columbia Collesre, New York. 
 
 THK GIFT OF 
 
 MICHAEL REESE 
 
 Of Sdfi FraiicisLO. 
 1 S 7 3 . 
 
 

A TREATISE 
 
 MILITAEY LAW 
 
 PRACTICE OF COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 CAPT. S. V. BENET, 
 
 ORDXANCE DEPARTMENT, U. S. ARMY ; LATE ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ETHIC 
 LAW, ETC., MILITARY ACADEMY, WEST POINT. 
 
 KEW YORK: 
 D. VAN NOSTKAND, 192 BROADWAY. 
 
 1862. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1862. by 
 
 D. VAN NOSTRAND, 
 
 In tl:e Clerk's Office of he District Court of the United States 
 for the Southern District of New York. 
 
 VLVOP.P, KLECTROTYI-EJ! ANT) I'KINTKR. 
 
PKEFACE. 
 
 "Within tlie past few years, more has been done to fix disputed 
 and doubtful points in the practice of our military tribunals, 
 than during any former period in our military history. For 
 this progressive movement, we are mainly indebted to the able 
 decisions, while reviewing the proceedings of courts-martial, 
 that have issued from the War Department since the establish- 
 ment of the ofiice of Judge Advocate of the Army ; and to the 
 many elaborate opinions by the Attorneys General, on points 
 of law requiring legal interpretation. These decisions and opin- 
 ions, presenting, as they do, authoritative information of un- 
 usual interest to the army at large and not generally accessible, 
 first suggested the preparation of a work in which they might 
 be embodied. Tlie suggestion lost none of its force, in view of 
 the fact, that for the instruction of the Cadets of the Military 
 Academy in the practice of courts-martial, this most essential 
 information was not to be found in their text-book. 
 
 This volume has been the result of nnich careful investiga- 
 tion, and the hope is entertained that it may contribute a use- 
 ful link in the chain of our military jurisprudence. To the 
 Judge Advocate of the Army, I am indebted, for furnishing 
 me the infoi-mation I had occasion to seek in the records of the 
 AVar Department. 
 
 United States Military Academy, 
 
 West Point, N. Y., Jfarch 25th, 1862. 
 
CONTENTS, 
 
 CHAPTER I. PiGK. 
 
 Military La-^v 'i 
 
 CHAPTER U. 
 Constitution' and Comi'Ositiox of Courts-Martial IT 
 
 CHAPTER in. 
 Jurisdiction' 2G 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Dlstixctive Jurisdiction — Offexges and Pumsitsiext 37 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 Arrest and Confinement 4G 
 
 CHAPTER YI. 
 Charges and Specifications •'i2 
 
 CHAPTER A'TI. 
 Of the Court and Parties to tue Trial TjO 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 Challenges and Oaths 68 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 FoRM.vTiON, Adjournment, and Dissolution of the Court 82 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 Of the Trial and its Incidents 88 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 The Finding 12.') 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 The Sentence 137 
 
6 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XIU. pa(;e. 
 
 Revision' and Confirmation of Sentence 146 
 
 CHAPTKR XIV. 
 ExECLTiON OF Sentence 166 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 lUnuKssiNCr Wrongs, and Appeals 170 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 Courts of Inquiry 171) 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 Boards for Retiring Disabled Officers 186 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 Of the Judge Advocate 192 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 Remarks on Artict.es of Var 20.5 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 Of Evidence 224 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Forms of Orders 323 
 
 Extracts from the Constitution of the United i^tates, and its Ajiend- 
 
 MENTS 334 
 
 Articles of War 3:;G 
 
 Extracts fmom Acts of Congrkss 358 
 
 INDEX 365 
 
MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAPJIAL. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 MILITARY LAW. 
 
 Military i^aAv is that portion of tlie law of tlie land, 
 designed for tlie government of a j^articular class of 
 persons, and administered by special tribunals. It is 
 superinduced to the ordinary law for the purpose of 
 regulating the citizen in his character of soldier ; and 
 although military offences are not cognizable under the 
 common law jurisdiction of the United States, yet the 
 articles of war clearly recognize the suj)eriority of the 
 civil over the military authority. 
 
 The constitution of the L^nited States empowers Con- 
 gress " to raise and support armies ; to provide and main- 
 tain a navy," and " to make rules for the government 
 and regulation of the land and naval forces."* As an 
 essential pai-t of these powers, it belongs exclusively to 
 Congress to ordain or provide for courts-martial and de- 
 fine their jurisdiction ; to make their sentences final and 
 conclusive, or subject to reviewing authority ; to desig- 
 nate by whom they shallbe convened, and then confumed 
 
 * Art. 1, section 8. 
 
8 MILITARY LAW AXD COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 or disapproved ; and generally, to make such statutory 
 provision concerning them, as in their ^^dsdom may be 
 deemed proper and necessary. 
 
 Rules and Articles of Wstr. The Con2;ress has exer- 
 cised that power in the enactment of the law of April 
 10th, 1806 — all previous rules and regulations being 
 declared " void and of no effect." This act, with some 
 slight legislative modifications, constitutes the entitle 
 code of laws now in force for the government of the 
 armies of the United States ; and by its provisions alone, 
 are courts-martial made the proper and sole tribunals 
 for the trial of military offences. 
 
 A court-martial is a lawful tribunal, existing by the 
 same authority that any other court exists by, and the 
 law military is a branch of law as valid as any other, 
 and it differs from the general law of the land in author- 
 ity only in this, that it applies to officers and soldiers of 
 the army, but not to other members of the body politic, 
 and that it is limited to breaches of militarj^ duty.* 
 
 Courts-martial are regulated by the articles of 'icai\ 
 the general regulations of the army, and by the orders 
 of the President relating thereto, and extant at the time ; 
 their practice is moreover regulated, in points where 
 the ■\^Titten law is silent, by the custom of tvar^ by 
 which expression, as here applied, must be understood 
 the customs and usages of the United States army. 
 
 General Regulations. The act of Congress of March 
 3d, 1813, enacts, "that it shall be the duty of the sec- 
 retary of the war department, and he is hereby author- 
 ized to prepare general regulations, <fec., <fec., which, 
 when approved T)y the President of the United States, 
 
 * Grant vs. Gould, ii. H. Blacks, 69, 98, 100. 
 
MILITARY LAW. 9 
 
 sliall be respected and obeyed, until altered or revoked 
 by tlie same autliority." The act of April 24tli, 1816^ 
 enacts, " that the regulations in force before the reduc- 
 tion of the army,* be recognized, as far as the same 
 shall be found applicable to the service ; subject, how- 
 ever, to such alterations as the secretary of war may 
 adopt with the approbation of the President." Under 
 this authority the "general regulations of the army" 
 now in force have legal effect, and so far as concerns the 
 regulating of that body, for whose guidance they were 
 framed, have all the binding force of military law ; j^ro- 
 vided of course, that they be consistent with the con- 
 stitution and the laws of the United States. 
 
 The cadets of the United States Military Academy 
 are also subject to these general regulations, in whatever 
 is applicable to them. In addition to this, they are 
 subject to special regulations, not only because the secre- 
 tary of war, under his general power to adopt regula- 
 tions, may make special regulations for any branch of 
 the ser^dce, but also because the act of April 29th, 1812, 
 contemplates the estaljlishment of specific regulations 
 for the Military Academy. Under this double author- 
 ity it is that the revised regulations issued by the de- 
 partment on the 14th March, 1853, now constitute the 
 governing code of the academy.f 
 
 Cnstom of ^Var. The custom of war is the lex non 
 scripta^ or common laAv of the army, and by the 69th ar- 
 ticle of war is recognized as a guide in administering mil- 
 itary justice. It can l)e considered as authority only 
 so far as to aid in removing any doubt that " should 
 arise not explained by said articles," and must be an 
 
 * Approved March 3d, 1815. f Attomey-gcueral's opinions, July lltli, 1855. 
 
10 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MARTIAL. 
 
 established custom, the growth of the service in which 
 it is a])pliecl. 
 
 martial L.aw. Martial law has been often confounded 
 with rnilitaiy law, and it is difficult to give, in precise 
 terms, its exact definition and import. 
 
 In continental Europe, as in France, we find the state 
 of siege. This may have a lawful origin, either in an 
 act of the political sovereignty, or in the necessity of 
 circumstances. When it exists, the civil law is sus- 
 pended for the time being, or at least made subordi- 
 nate, and its place is taken by martial law, under the 
 supreme, if not the direct, administration of the mili- 
 taiy power. The state of siege may exist, in a city or 
 in a district of country, either by reason of the same 
 being actually besieged or invested by a hostile force, 
 or by reason of domestic insurrection. In either case it 
 is the precise fact we are now considering. The state of 
 siege of the continental jurists, is the proclamation of 
 martial law of England and the United States — only 
 we are without law on the subject, while in other coun- 
 tries it is regulated by known limitations.* 
 
 In a debate in Parliament, the Duke of Wellington 
 contended that martial law was neither more nor less 
 than the will of the gefiieral who commands the army. 
 In fact, martial law was no law at all. Therefore, the 
 general who declared martial law and commanded that 
 it should be earned into eflect, was bound to lay down 
 distinctly the rules, and regulations, and limits, accord- 
 ing to which his will was to be carried out. Now, 
 he had in another countiy, carried on martial law ; that 
 was to say, he had governed a large part of the popu- 
 
 * Opinions, February 3d, 1857. 
 
:militaey law. 11 
 
 lation of a country hy lils own will. He declared that 
 the countiy should be governed according to its own 
 national laws, and he carried into execution that mil- 
 He governed the country strictly by the laws of the 
 country, and he governed it ^vith such moderation, that 
 political servants and judges, who had at first fled or 
 had been expelled, afterward consented to act under 
 his direction. The judges sat in the courts of law, con- 
 ducting their judicial business, and administering the 
 law by his authority.* 
 
 INIartial law, as exercised in any country by the com- 
 mander of a foreign army, is an element of tlie^'«.9 belli. 
 It is incidental to the state of solemn war, and apper- 
 tains to the law of nations. The commander of the 
 invading, occupying, or conquering army, rules the in- 
 vaded, occupied, or conquered foreign country, with su- 
 preme power, limited only by international law, and 
 the orders of the sovereign or c^overnment he serves or 
 represents. Such occupation by riglit of war, so long 
 as it is military only, that \^^ jlagrcmte hello ^ will be the 
 case put by the Duke of Wellington, of all the powers 
 of the government resumed in the hands of the com- 
 mander-in-chief If any local authority continue to sub- 
 sist, it will be \A\\\ his permission only, and with power 
 to do nothing except what ho, in his plenary discretion, 
 or his o^vn sovereign through him, shall see fit to au- 
 thorize.f 
 
 During the occupation of Mexico T)y the United States 
 army, the general-in-chief declared martial law. After 
 stating in his "general order" that the written code 
 commonly called the rules and articles of war, does not 
 
 * Hansard, 3d series. f Gushing. Opinions, vol. VIII., 3G5. 
 
12 3IILITAKY LATV A^^D COUKTS-MAKTIAL. 
 
 pro-snde for the punisliment of certain crimes, siicli as 
 assassination, murder, poisoning, rape, <fec., and is abso- 
 lutely silent as to all injuries whicli may be inflicted 
 upon individuals of tlie army, or their property, against 
 the laws of war, by individuals of a hostile country, 
 General Scott remarks, that "a supplemental code is 
 absolutely needed. That vnivritteri code is martial law, 
 as an addition to the ivritten military code, prescribed 
 by Congress in the rules and articles of war, and which 
 unwritten code all armies in hostile countries are forced 
 to adopt, not only for their own safety, but for the 
 protection of the unoffending inhabitants and their prop- 
 erty, aljout the theatres of military operations, against 
 injuries on the part of the army, contrary to the laws 
 of war. * * * For this purpose, it is ordered, that 
 all offenders in the matters aforesaid, sliall be promptly 
 seized, confined, and reported for trial before military 
 Gomimismons^ to be duly appointed, etc." 
 
 These commissions were appointed, governed and lim- 
 ited as nearly as practicable, as prescribed for courts- 
 martial ; their proceedings to be recorded, reviewed, 
 revised, disapproved or confirmed, jmd their sentences 
 executed, all as near as may be, as in the cases of the pro- 
 ceedings and sentences of courts-martial ; " provided that 
 no military commission shall ti'}' any case, clearly cogni- 
 zable, by any court-martial, and provided also that no 
 sentence of a military commission shall be put in exe- 
 cution against any individual belonging to this army, 
 which may not be, according to the nature and degree of 
 the offence, as established by evidence, in conformity 
 with known punishments, in like cases, in some one of 
 the states of the United States of America. 
 
MILITARY LAAV. 13 
 
 " Tlie administration of justice, hotli in civil and crim- 
 inal matters, through the ordinary courts of the country, 
 shall nowhere and in no degree be interrupted by any 
 officer or soldier, except" in certain specified cases.* 
 
 The above was the form of martial law as declared in 
 the enemy's country, and to cease of course when hos- 
 tilities should cease. We must, however, clearly distin- 
 guish between martial law, as a foreign or international 
 fact, and the same thing as a domestic or municipal fact. 
 
 In Great Britain^ thougli the preamble of the mutiny 
 act specifically declares the illegality of martial law in 
 time of peace, it evidently recognizes the legality of re- 
 sorting to that expedient in time of war and intestine 
 commotion. The power of the sovereign, or the represent- 
 ative of majesty, to proclaim martial law, lias been fully 
 set forth in many statutes, and the acknowledged pre- 
 rogative of the crown, to resort to the exercise of mar- 
 tial law against open enemies or traitors, is expressly 
 declared in several earlier statutes, and among others, in 
 the more recent Irish disturbance act which expired 
 August 1st, 1834.t 
 
 In the United States, martial law is a thing not men- 
 tioned by name, and scarcely as much as hinted at, in 
 the constitution and statutes. The former declares that 
 " the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not lie 
 suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, 
 the public safety may require it." And the opinion is 
 expressed by the commentators on the constitution, that 
 the right to suspend the \w\i of liabeas corpus, and also 
 
 * General order, No. 287. Iload-quarters of the army, National Palace of 
 Mexico, September 17th, 1847 
 f Simmons' Courts-Marlial. p. 15. 
 
14 MILITARY LAAV AND COUHTSOIAEJTAL. 
 
 tliat of judging when tlie exigency lias arisen, lielong 
 exclusively to Congress. But the rebellion or invasion 
 may demand such suspension during a i-ecess of the 
 national legislature, and, by the laws of war, the ex- 
 ecutive has then the right to assume the power for the 
 public safety. The relation between the proclamation 
 of martial law and the suspension of the writ of hahea-s' 
 corpus^ is extremely intimate ; although it is but one of 
 its consequences, and by no means the largest or grav- 
 est, since, according to every definition of martial law, it 
 suspends, for the time being, all the laws of the land, 
 and substitutes in their place no law, that is, the mere 
 will of the military commander. 
 
 Definition. Martial law, then, is that military rule 
 and authority which exists in time of war, and is con- 
 ferred by the laws of war, in relation to persons and 
 things under and within the scope of active military 
 operations in carrying on the war, and which extin- 
 guishes or suspends civil rights, and the remedies 
 founded upon them, for the time being, so far as it may 
 appear to be necessary in order to the full accomplish- 
 ment of the purpose of the war, the party who exercises 
 it being liable in an action for any aljuse of the author- 
 ity thus conferred. It is the application of military 
 government — ^the government of force — to persons and 
 property within the scope of it, accordiuo- to the laws 
 and usages of war, to the exclusion of the municipal 
 government, in all resj^ects where the latter would im- 
 pair the efficiency of military law or military action." 
 
 How executed. In carrying on war in a portion of 
 countiy occupied or threatened to be attacked by an 
 
 * North American Review, October, ISGl. 
 
^.IILITAKY LAW. 15 
 
 enemy, wlietlier ^vitliiii or without tlie territory of tlie 
 Uuited States, crimes and military offences are fre- 
 quently committed, wliicli are not triable or punishable 
 by courts-martial, and which are not within the juris- 
 diction of any existing civil courts. Such cases, how- 
 ever, must be investigated, and the guilty parties pun- 
 ished. The good of society and the safety of the army, 
 imperiously demand this. They must, therefore, be 
 taken cognizance of by the military power; but, except 
 in cases of extreme urgency, a military commander 
 should not himself attem2:)t to decide upon the guilt or 
 innocence of individuals. On the contrary, it is the 
 usage and custom of war, among all civilized nations, 
 to refer such cases to a duly constituted military tri- 
 bunal, composed of reliable officers, who, acting under 
 the solemnity of an oath, and the responsibility always 
 attached to a court of record, Avill examine witnesses, 
 determine the guilt or innocence of the parties accused, 
 and fix the punishment. This is usually done by courts- 
 martial ; but in our country, these courts have a very 
 limited jurisdiction, both in regard to persons and 
 offences. Many classes of persons cannot be arraigned 
 before such courts ibr any offence whatever, and many 
 crimes committed, even by military officers, enlisted men 
 or camp retainers, cannot be tried under the " rules 
 and articles of war." Military commissions must be 
 resorted to for such cases, and these commissions should 
 be ordered by the same authority, be constituted in a 
 similar manner, and their proceedings be conducted 
 according to the same general rules as courts-martial, 
 in order to prevent abuses which might otherwise arise. 
 Civil offences cognizal>le b}' civil courts, whenever 
 
16 MILITARY LAW AIS^D COUETS-MARTIAL. 
 
 such loyal courts exist, will not he tried by a military 
 commission. It should therefore be stated in every 
 application for a commission, whether or not there is 
 any loyal civil court to which the civil offence charged 
 can be referred for trial. It must be observed, how- 
 ever, that many offences which in time of peace are civil 
 offences, become in time of war military offences, and 
 are to be tried by a military tribunal, even in places 
 where civil tribunals exist.* 
 
 * G. O., Xo. 1. Head-quarters, departmeut of Missouri, January 1st, 1862. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 CONSTITUTION AND COMPOSITION OF 
 COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 I:sr confoiTaity witli tlie autliority conveyed by the 
 rules aud articles of war, certain officers, therein specified, 
 are empowered to convene general^ regimental., and gar- 
 rison courts-martial; the comjoosition of the several 
 courts, wliatever their jurisdiction, being distinctly stated 
 and defined. 
 
 Oenerai Courts-Martial may be appointed by any gen- 
 eral officer commanding an army, or colonel commanding 
 a separate department,^'' and in time of war l)y a com- 
 mander of a division or separate brigade.f This, of 
 course, includes the President of the United States, who 
 is, by the constitution, the commander-in-chief of the 
 army and na\"}", and, therefore, the first general of the 
 confederacy ; though this power is first given to him 
 in terms by the act of May 29th, 1830, in the case 
 when a general officer commanding an army, or a col- 
 onel commanding a separate department, shall be the 
 accuser or j^i'osecutor of any officer of the army of the 
 United States under his command. "When the division 
 or brigade connnander shall be the accuser or prosecutor, 
 the court shall be appointed by the next higher com- 
 mander. 
 
 * 65th article of war. \ Act approved Dec. 24th, 1861. 
 
 2 
 
18 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 Regimental Coiirt$i-:n[artiai maybe ap2:)ninted by every 
 officer commanding a regiment or coi'ps ; and Garri§on 
 Courts-:»iartiai l:)y all officers commanding any of the 
 garrisons, forts, barracks, or otlier places where the 
 troops consist of diiferent corps.'^ 
 
 The ^VarraiBt for the asseml)ling of a court-martial is 
 issued in the form of an order, by the officer specially 
 empowered by the law. The English " Mutiny Act," 
 from which our articles of war are mainly derived, pro- 
 vides for the delegation of this power to inferiors, by 
 those who have the right of appointing courts-martial, 
 but as no such power is authorized l)y oiu' laws, the 
 practice formerly in vogue has been very properly pro- 
 hibited. And, indeed, the practical operation of the 
 acts, above cited, of May 29th, 1830, and December 24th, 
 1861, would prove of no effect were such a course of pro- 
 cedure reco2:nized. It has therefore been decided that 
 he alone, to whom the law has given the authority to 
 act in such cases, must appoint the court; and that no 
 right to delegate such authority can be exercised ^\'ithout 
 the express sanction of law.f 
 
 A general court-martial having expressed a doubt as 
 to the regular it u of the order by which it was convened, 
 on the ground that the secretary of war was not com- 
 petent to render such an order, the question was duly 
 considered by the secretary and president, and the result 
 was, that the}^ entertained no doubt of the j^erfect regu- 
 larity of the order. Their decision enil)odied the fol- 
 lowino- considerations : Althous-h the President cannot 
 delegate his powers, he need not in all cases exercise 
 them in proper person. In the language of Mr. Wirt, 
 
 * GGtli article of war. \ Captain lIcK's. case, August, 1845. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF COURTS- JIARTIAL. 19 
 
 attorney-general (opinion July Gtli, 1820) : "The orders 
 issued hj the heads of departments are, in contemplation 
 of law, not their orders, but the orders of the President 
 of the United States, and it is as manifest a breach of 
 military subordination to dispute the orders of the heads 
 of these departments, as if they j^roceeded from the Pres- 
 ident in person." In the case of the United States vs. 
 Eliason, the Supreme Court say : " The secretary of war 
 is the regular constitutional organ of the President for 
 the administration of the military department of the na- 
 tion, and rules and orders 2:)ublicly promulgated through 
 him, must be received as the acts of the executive, and 
 as such be binding on all within the sphere of his legal 
 and constitutional authority," and iji the case of Wilcox 
 vs. Jackson, the Supreme Court say : " We consider the 
 act of the war department as being, in legal contempla- 
 tion, the act of the President." 
 
 The practice of the heads of departments conforms 
 to this theory. They daily issue in their names, orders 
 emanating from the President, and although it is some- 
 times stated in the order itself, that it is issued by 
 direction of the President, this is not always done, and 
 when it is not, the fact is presumed.* 
 
 €oiiiini<>!>iione<i Officers. It is prescribed 1)y the law 
 that courts-martial must be composed exclusively of 
 " commissioned officers."f 
 
 C7uqjlain-s; Surgeons, etc. In interpreting the words 
 " commissioned officers," as applicable to persons eligi- 
 ble as members of courts-martial, it has ])een the custom 
 of service to exclude from that class, all surgeons, as- 
 sistant-surgeons, and paymasters, and indeed every one 
 
 * TTar department, Oft. nOth, 1S50. f C4th and GGth articles of war. 
 
20 MILITARY LAW AKD C0UET5-MAETIAL. 
 
 wlio is not clothed with military rank proper, and hav- 
 ing thereby an inherent right of command. This is 
 thought to be in strict consonance mth the purposes 
 intended by law. It would certainly seem somewhat 
 anomalous to institute a court for the trial of military 
 offences, and appoint as judges, persons who, from their 
 duties in connection with the army, from their previous 
 pursuits and education, and the manner in which they 
 are introduced into the service, can have but a very lim- 
 ited knowledge and doubtful views of military conduct.* 
 
 Simmonsf states that instances may be quoted where 
 paymasters and also surgeons and assistant-surgeons 
 have been required to perform this duty ; but the custom 
 and convenience of the service forbid recourse being 
 had to these staff-officers except in urgent circumstances, 
 notwithstanding that, in the performance of theii' duties 
 these officers l^ecome acquainted with the rules that 
 apply to military subordination and discipline. 
 
 In our service this question has, however, been set 
 at rest by the opinion of Hon. J. McP. Berrien, attor- 
 ney-general, of November 6th, 1829, given in answer 
 to the query: "Whether chaplains^ surgeons^ or pur- 
 sers^ who are regarded on board our ships as non-com- 
 batants, are competent to officiate as membei'S of a na- 
 val court-martial ?" He says : " If we look to the origin 
 of courts-martial in England (from whence we borrow 
 them), it would be difficult to believe that a tribunal 
 which has succeeded there to the ancient coui-t of chiv- 
 alry, could be composed of other than military men. 
 And if we consider the nature of the subjects which 
 are generally submitted to the decision of these tribu- 
 
 * Do Hart, p. 38. t P- 8- 
 
CONSTITUTION OF COUETS-MARTIAL. 21 
 
 nals, the knowledge of militcaiy discipline and usage, and 
 frequently of tactics (wliicli is indispensable to those 
 who 2:)reside there), it would seem that non-comhatants, 
 whose duties do not lead them to acquire this species 
 of information and who have no rank, either real or 
 assimilated, could not be deemed competent to sit on 
 courts-martial." 
 
 The question was at one time discussed, whether grad- 
 %iated cadets with the brevet rank of second lieuten- 
 ants, and attached as supernumerary officers to corps of 
 the arm}', were " commissioned officers " within the mean- 
 ing of the articles of war that prescribe such as the only 
 persons eligible to sit as members of courts-martial. 
 The opinion of Mr. Attorney-General Berrien, of Au- 
 gust 17th, 1829, ruled that they were not such commis- 
 sioned officers. This opinion was never fully acquiesced 
 in, and the subject was su])sequently settled by orders 
 from the war department in the following words: 
 " Under this act (April 29th, 1812), the President is not 
 required either to commission such graduate when there 
 is a vacancy, or to attach him as a supernumerary offi- 
 cer by brevet of the lowest grade when there is no va- 
 cancy, but he may do so at his discretion, and having 
 exercised that discretion, such graduate, so commis- 
 sioned and attached, becomes an officer of tlie lowest 
 grade in the corps, and is entitled to all consideration 
 as a commissioned officer."* 
 
 In July, 1855, this question again became the sub- 
 ject of official interpretation, and Mr. Attorney-General 
 Cushing's opinion upheld the above decision as follows : 
 " He is designated by ' brevet of the lowest grade as 
 
 ♦General order No. 11, April 15th, 1845. 
 
22 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 a supernumerary officer.' WLat in fact tlius happens ? 
 It is, tliat lie is appointed ' brevet second lieutenant,' 
 with the pay and emoluments of that grade — and al- 
 though the statute does not here say it, yet the general 
 law says, Avith the military j^ower of a second lieuten- 
 ant, for service in garrison, camji, or field, and also with 
 the rights and privileges of a second lieutenant. But 
 is he a ' commissioned officer V I say, yes : commis- 
 sioned with a brevet commission, to be sure ; but still 
 commissioned as an officer upon nomination to and 
 confirmation by the Senate. * * * On these consid- 
 erations, it seems to me indubitable, that a cadet with 
 brevet of second lieutenant is a commissioned officer; 
 that he can be tried as a commissioned officer; and that 
 he is legally capable as a commissioned officer to try." 
 
 Whenever it may be found convenient and necessary 
 to the public service, it is provided, that the officers of 
 the marines shall be associated with the officers of the 
 land forces, for the purpose of holding courts-martial, 
 and trying offenders belonging to either. " It is also 
 provided, that the officers and soldiers of any troops, 
 whether militia or others, being mustered and in pay 
 of the United States, shall, when joined, or acting in 
 conjunction with the regular forces of the United States, 
 be governed by these rules and articles of war, and 
 shall be subject to be tried by courts-martial; but such 
 courts-martial shall be composed entirely of militia offi- 
 cers.f 
 
 Number of iTienibers. The 64th article of war enacts 
 that general courts-martial may consist of any number 
 
 * G8th article of war. 
 
 f 97th article of war, and act approved July 29th, 1861, section 5. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL, 23 
 
 of commissioned officers, from five to tliirteeii, inclu- 
 sively; but they shall not consist of less than thirteen 
 where that number can be convened without manifest 
 injury to the service. 
 
 A question has been raised whether a general court 
 of less titan thirteen memhers is a legal court, in case 
 that number could have been convened without manifest 
 injury to the service. It may be difficult to conceive an 
 emergency in time of peace, so pressing, as to disable 
 the general officer ordering the court from convening 
 thirteen commissioned officers loitliout manifest injury 
 to tlie service. And if a smaller number act mthout 
 such manifest emergency, they are not a la^vful court, 
 and an execution under their sentence would be mur- 
 der.* And yet this law makes provision as to the num- 
 l^er of officers to be ordered on a general court-martial, 
 l)ut none as to the number who must actually attend 
 and participate in its proceedings beyond a fixed mini- 
 mum. No law or regulation requires all the members 
 of the court who participated in its original proceed- 
 ings, to continue present until the time of their con- 
 clusion. Objections to competency may diminish the 
 original number. So may sickness, death, or the same 
 exigencies of the service, which authorize the original 
 appointment of a number less than thirteen. Still it is , 
 a lawful court. f The article indubitably grants to the 
 appointing power the exercise of a wise discretion, and 
 nothing short of clear and indisputable evidence of a 
 wilfully corrupt intention could invalidate his act. The 
 law was made sufficiently flexible to conform, as near 
 
 * "Wirt's opinion, August 29th, 1819. 
 
 \ Attorney-general's opinions, July 12th, 1855. 
 
24 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MAKTIAL. 
 
 as possible, to the constantly varied necessities of the 
 service, and not intended by its rigid exercise to make 
 the public good subservient to individual interest. 
 
 The interpretation of the law, l)y the highest legal 
 and judicial authority, is expressed in the opinion of 
 Justice Story of the Supreme Court, in the case of 
 Martin vs. Mott, when it was decided that " the dii'ec- 
 tion contained in the act of 1806, that a o:eneral court- 
 martial 'shall not consist of less than thirteen, when 
 that number can be convened without manifest injury 
 to the service,' is merely directory of the officer appoint- 
 ing the court ; and his decision as to whether that num- 
 ber can be convened without manifest injury to the 
 service, being in a matter subjected to his sound discre- 
 tion, must be conclusive."^ 
 
 When in the opinion of the proper authority, the cu'- 
 cumstances of the case demand a full court, or one 
 composed of the maximum number of thirteen to pass 
 judgment, it is the custom to name supernumerary 
 officers who can replace absent regular members, or 
 vacated seats, during any stage of the proceedings, in 
 order to prevent delays and the repetition of labor — 
 as also any interruption in the course of the trial. 
 
 When the numher of members to form the court is 
 not specified^ the court is fully competent to proceed, 
 provided it does not fall below the minimum fixed by 
 law. 
 
 Rcsfimcntai courts-:nartiai are to consist of three com- 
 missioned officers, to be appointed for his own regiment 
 or corps by every officer commanding the same.f 
 
 Garrison Couris-:ilitrtial are to consist of three com- 
 
 * 12 "Wheaton, 34, 35. f 6Gth article of war. 
 
CONSTITUTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL. 25 
 
 missioned officers, to be assembled by all officers com- 
 manding any of tlie garrisons, tfec, where the troops 
 consist of different corps.'^ 
 
 Presidcsit of «iic Court. It was formerly tlie practice 
 (and is still so, by law, in the British service), in the 
 order convening a court-martial, to name the senior in 
 the detail as the president of the court, but this was 
 found not at all necessary, as the officer highest in rank 
 has the right to preside.f Besides, if the president be 
 specially named in the warrant, and his attendance be 
 prevented by accident, or by challenge of the accused, 
 the court cannot proceed until the officer ordering the 
 court supplies his place ; a necessity which, in the scat- 
 tered condition of our troops on the frontier, would lead 
 to serious and inconvenient delays. As om- laws make 
 no mention of such a functionary, and the practice has 
 proved an evil, the custom of appointing a president to 
 a court has been discontinued — the senior member pres- 
 ent, l)y virtue of his rank being the presiding officer. 
 
 Rank of iTicmbers. The 75th article states that no 
 officer shall be tried by officers of an inferior rank, 
 if it can be avoided. This is the only limitation as to 
 degree of rank necessary in constituting a court-martial, 
 and, equally ^\dth the number to be convened, is discre- 
 tionary with the appointing power. 
 
 * GGth article of war. f Gist article of war. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 JUKISDICTION. 
 
 The riglit of personal security, is guarded by provis- 
 ions whicli have been transcribed into the constitutions 
 in this country from Magna Charta, and other funda- 
 mental acts of the English Parliament ; and it is en- 
 forced by additional and more precise injunctions.* 
 The substance of these provisions is to be found in the 
 fifth and sixth amendments of the constitution. By the 
 fifth amendment it is declared that " no person shall be 
 held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous 
 crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand 
 jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, 
 or in the militia when in actual service in time of war 
 or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for 
 the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or 
 limb ; nor shall he be compelled, in any criminal case, 
 to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, 
 liberty, or property, Avithout due process of law." 
 
 The constitution, therefore, while expressly empow- 
 ering Congress " to make rules for the government of 
 the land and naval forces,"f expressly excepts the trial 
 of cases arising in the land or naval service from the 
 ordinary provisions of law. 
 
 Together ^\'ith this exception, courts-martial are more- 
 
 * 1 Kent's Commentary, p. 618. f Article 1, section 8. 
 
JTJKISDICTION. 21 
 
 over restricted to tlie cognizance of offences declared 
 by, or under, the powers of tlie act of 1806, the general 
 regulations of the army and the custom of war ; com- 
 mitted within the limits of time therein specified by per- 
 sons su])ject to military law; the penalties depending 
 on the rank of the individual by whom offences may be 
 committed, and varying also according to the powers of 
 the court by which they may be adjudicated. 
 
 Accordingly, no doubt is intimated in any of the 
 books of our law as to the competency and completeness 
 of the jurisdiction of courts-martial in the cases and 
 under the conditions provided by articles of war. (Serg. 
 on const., p. 130.) And in the great case of Moore vs. 
 Houston (1 Wheaton, p. 1), where a majority of the 
 judges maintained the validity of proceedings l>y courts- 
 martial, esta1 )lished by the states, applicable to the mili- 
 tia, the reasoning of all the judges, on both sides of the 
 question, is conclusive as to the completeness of the 
 jurisdiction of courts-martial under the authority of the 
 United States. 
 
 In the different states the constitutionality of the 
 jurisdiction of courts-martial has been affirmed, dii'ectly 
 or indirectly, beyond all controversy or cavil. (See 
 Ra^vson vs. Brown, 6 Shepley, p. 216 ; Brent vs. Bogar- 
 dus, 7 Johns., p. 157.") 
 
 It is enacted by the 88th article of war, that no per- 
 son shall be liable to be tried and punished by a gen- 
 eral court-martial, for any offence which shall appear to 
 have been committed more than two years before the 
 issuing of the orders for such trial, <fec. Sul)ject to this 
 limitation of time, tlie jurisdiction of courts-martial ex- 
 
 * Altoruey-gencral's opinion, April 7tli, 1854. 
 
28 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-ilAETIAL. 
 
 tends to every case where charges are exhibited against 
 persons to whom the provisions of the articles of war 
 are applical^le. 
 
 By virtue of the 1st article of war all commissioned 
 officers, and of the 10th article, all enlisted men in the 
 army are subject to the rules and articles of war. 
 
 The 96th article declares that " all officers, conduc- 
 tors, gunners, matrosses, drivers, or other persons what- 
 soever, receiving pay or hire in the service of the artil- 
 lery or corps of engineers of the United States, shall be 
 governed by the aforesaid rules and articles, and shall 
 be subject to be tried by courts-martial, in like manner 
 with the officers and soldiers of the other troojDs in the 
 service of the United States." This article is very gen- 
 eral in its application. It matters not whether the per- 
 son be enlisted or not, nor what kind of service he may 
 perform, provided he receives ^;<:/?/ or hire in the service 
 of the artillery or engineers, he at once becomes amen- 
 able to the rules and articles of war. It is by virtue 
 of this article, as shown by Mr. Attorney-General Wirt, 
 August 21st, 1819, that the professors and cadets at 
 the Military Academy are subject to these rules and 
 articles, coming as they do under the designation of 
 " other persons whatsoever receiving pay in the service 
 of the corps of engineers." 
 
 The 97th article also declares that " the officers and 
 soldiers of any troops, whether militia or others, being 
 mustered and in pay of the United States, shall * * * 
 be governed by these rules and articles of war, and shall 
 be subject to be tried by courts-martial, &c." 
 
 Besides these, all the laws, with few exceptions, if 
 any, creating or reorganizing the different corps of the 
 
JURISDICTIOIS". 29 
 
 army, contain express provisions subjecting the mem- 
 bers thereof to the rules and articles of war. 
 
 "Art. 60. All sutlers and retainers of the camp, and 
 all persons whatsoever, serving with the armies of the 
 United States in the field, though not enlisted soldiers, 
 are to be sul^ject to orders, according to the rules and 
 discipline of war." This description of persons, though 
 neither enlisted nor in pay, have ever been sul^ject to 
 orders according to the rules and discipline of war, and 
 whether temporarily or permanently attached to, or mo- 
 mentarily and accidentally connected with, an army in 
 the field, or on the line of march, are liable, by order of 
 the commander, to trial by coui't-martial for any breach 
 of good order, whether as afi*ecting the discipline of the 
 army, or the private rights of individuals. The custom 
 which prevails in the field of thus trying persons not 
 connected with the army, must have arisen from, as it 
 depends on, necessity;'^ and numerous instances might 
 be cited where courts-martial have exercised their pow- 
 ers over camp-followers of all descriptions. The neces- 
 sity now spoken of gave origin to the law, })y w^hich 
 the rights on one side, and the obligations on the other, 
 were delegated and imposed.f 
 
 Sutlers are persons regularly authorized by the war 
 department, to sell provisions, merchandise, <fec., to 
 troops, subject to certain regulations and restrictions. 
 
 Retainers to the €ainp are those who are connected 
 with the military service by pay or fee, such as clerks, 
 drivers, guides, &c. 
 
 Persons Serving with the Armies include all W'ho derive 
 their compensation fi-om private sources, as servants, tfec. 
 
 * Simmons, p. 3-4. f Do Hart, p. 24. 
 
30 MILITARY LAW AXD COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 These various descri2:)tioiis of persons enjoy certain 
 privileges in consideration of tlie advantages, conve- 
 nience, &c., which they offer to soldiers, and entering as 
 they do, by their own voluntary act, into a new society 
 having peculiar laws of its own, they must conform to 
 those laws or suffer the penalty attached to their in- 
 fringement. 
 
 Spies, &c. Besides the persons included in the arti- 
 cles above cited, there are others who, for particular 
 offences, may be tried by militaiy courts though they 
 should not in any way be attached to the army. This 
 is the case with persons not owing allegiance to the 
 United States, who shall be found lurking as 62Jie'S, and 
 also w^itli any persons who shall relieve the enemy with 
 money, victuals, or ammunition, or shall knowingly har- 
 hor or protect an enemy, or shall liold correspondence 
 w4th, or give intelligence to, the enemy, either directly 
 or indirectly.''^ 
 
 Contempts of Court. Article 76. This article gives a 
 court-martial summary power to punish at its discretion, 
 any person "whatsoever" who "shall use any menacing 
 words, signs, or gestures, in presence of a court-martial, 
 or shall cause any disorder or riot, or disturb their pro- 
 ceedings." 
 
 It must, however, be remarked, that no contempts are 
 thus subjected to a summary punishment, except such 
 only as are of an aggravated and self-evident nature, 
 which being committed in the presence of the court, do 
 not need to be substantiated by any other evidence, and 
 not l)eing dependent on any constructive interpretation of 
 the law, do not require more protracted investigation.f 
 
 *Sec. 2 and articles. 5G and 57. f Simmons, p. 156. 
 
JURISDICTION". 31 
 
 Under the authority of the above-quoted article, 
 courts-martial are, undoubtedly, fully empowered to pro- 
 ceed against military persons. The words of the article 
 — "the said court" — are express, and the custom of ser- 
 vice is an authority for the summary award of punish- 
 ment by the court (that is, the same court, and not 
 exposed to change by the allowance of challenges), 
 whose proceedings may be interrupted. Judgment can 
 be passed upon the accused without all the previous 
 forms of trial, but the court must be sworn and a dis- 
 tinct charge made out — the accused being permitted to 
 appear and make such explanations as he may desire. 
 
 In the enforcement of the article under consideration, 
 courts-martial have the power to arrest the guilty party, 
 and if an officer, even should he be superior in rank 
 to all the members of the court. 
 
 A general court-martial is by law the highest judi- 
 cial body known to the military service, and its jurisdic- 
 tion is not made dependent on the rank of its members, 
 but is co-extensive with the trial of all crimes, and all 
 persons subject to military law. But regii^ental and 
 garrison courts-martial, fi'om tlieir constitution, are not, 
 in similar cases, competent to award any punishment to 
 commissioned officei-s. Under such circumstances, these 
 minor courts would only have power to arrest an of- 
 ficer, whatever his rank, and report the same with the 
 cause of the arrest to the proper authority. 
 
 In the case of civilians^ the Britisli courts-martial are 
 not required to award summary punishment, nor have 
 they the power of ordering into arrest ; but they may 
 direct the removal, by force, of any person who may 
 obstruct their proceedings, in order that he may be 
 
32 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 " taken before the civil magistrate to be punished ac- 
 cording to law." Our article embraces by its terms all 
 persons " ivhatsoever^^'' and clearly includes persons not 
 belonging to the military profession ; and as the law 
 proceeds directly fi'om the supreme legislative power of 
 the country, it should have, equally ^\'ith all law, inherent 
 in itself, competent authority to secure its administra- 
 tion from disobedience and contempt. A power, there- 
 fore, in the supreme courts of justice to suppress such 
 contempts by an immediate attachment of the offender, 
 results from the first principles of judicial establish- 
 ments, and must be an inseparable attendant upon 
 every superior tribunal. "" As, however, com-ts-martial 
 have no appointed means of enforcing their mandates 
 against civilians, suj^posing the existence of a power to 
 make such mandates, a procedure against them would 
 be vain and nugatory ; and yet disturbances of the pro- 
 ceedings of courts-martial should not pass unnoticed. 
 Where the court sits Avithiu the limits of a garrison, or 
 territory subject to military jurisdiction, the court can 
 cause the offender to be ejected from its presence and 
 put beyond the military limits. And when the court 
 holds its sessions in towns or at j^laces not knowTi as 
 military posts, such persons may likewise be put out of 
 the presence of the court ; and should fm'ther distm'- 
 bance be made or attemj^ted from the outside of the 
 court-room, the civil authorities may be appealed to, to 
 proceed against the offenders for a breach of the peace.f 
 Court-Martial Jurisdiction after tlic Expiration of Term 
 of Service. The question — Can a court-martial exercise 
 jurisdiction over a soldier after the ex2:)iration of the term 
 
 * 4 Black. Com., p. 285. f Do Hart, p. 108. 
 
JURISDICTION. 33 
 
 of Ills enlistment, for an oifence committed prior to sucli 
 period^— lias been frequently made the siil)ject of dis- 
 cussion, and as yet no decision lias been had from courts- 
 martial or other competent military authority. The 
 articles of war set no limit, as to time, to the jurisdic- 
 tion of courts-martial, other than that declared l)y the 
 88tli article. The soldier voluntarily makes an engage- 
 ment with the government, in his enlistment, rendered 
 sacred by the solemnity of an oath, "to observe and 
 oheip the orders of the President of the United States, 
 and the orders of the officers appointed over him, " accord- 
 ing to the rules and articles for the government of the 
 armies of the United States." This compact is equally 
 l)inding on both parties, and can only be dissolved as 
 j^rescribed by these /' rules and articles." Punishments 
 are there ordered to be inflicted for violations of the 
 terms of the compact, and the mere exj)iratioii of the term 
 of service should hardly release either party from the 
 faithful performance of his share thereof If the soldier 
 has \dolated any of the articles which he swore to ob- 
 serve and obey, strict justice demands that he should be 
 put square upon the record by suffering the punish- 
 ment awarded for such an offence. Besides, the general 
 princi})le of law is, that whenever any act is prohibited 
 under a penalty, and no limitation affixed to a prosecu- 
 tion, the offender is amenable at any time during his 
 life. If as a soldier he l)e subject to trial by court-mar- 
 tial for an offence committed while wearing the mili- 
 tary character and subject to military law, the mere 
 throwing off this military character and assuming the 
 civil status cannot cleanse him from the foulness of vio- 
 lated law, be that la^v military or civil. 
 
34 MILITARY LAW AKD COUIiTS-:MAETIAL. 
 
 This is, liowever, but a general view of the question. 
 Practically, two cases may arise, dej)endent upon tlie 
 time ^vhen proceedings are commenced. 
 
 1st. AYhen proceedings are commenced hefore the ex- 
 piration of his enlistment. 
 
 A case in point arose in the navy, in January, 1830, 
 and as it throws much light upon the principles of law 
 involved in the discussion of this question, a few extracts 
 from the opinion of the court are here given. 
 
 It appears that William Walher enlisted into the navy 
 of the United States, on the 5th January, 1829, to serve 
 one year; and that on the 3d Januaiy, 1830, he, being 
 still a seaman in the navy, committed certain crimes and 
 offences. His commanding officer. Captain Morris, im- 
 mediately placed him in confinement, and on the day 
 following, preferred charges against him to the secretary 
 of the navy, and accordingly a court-martial for his trial 
 was ordered on the 13th, which court was duly convened. 
 
 The accused w\as brought before the Supreme Court 
 of Massachusetts, on a writ of habeas- corpus^ and his 
 counsel moved the court that he should be discharged 
 without delay. This motion was resisted by the op- 
 posing counsel, and after arguments from both sides 
 had been heard by the court, a decision was given. 
 
 " * * * The motion for the petitioner's discharge 
 from the custody of Cai)tain ]\Iorris, is grounded upon 
 the objections, that neither by the rules for the regula- 
 tion of the navy, nor by any other statute, is it provided 
 that an}- seaman should be detained 1)eyond the period 
 of his enlistment, for any purpose or cause whatever : * * 
 tliat unless it is so provided by ex])ress statute, liis offi- 
 cers have no authority to detain him for trial, or for any 
 
JURISDICTION. 35 
 
 other purpose heyond tlie term of his enlistment. •' "' 
 Now the ^v^or(ls of the statute do not require such a con- 
 struction. It is true that a seaman is not l)Ound to do 
 service after the term of his enlistment. But within 
 that term he is bound to observe the rules and regula- 
 tions provided Ijy law, for the government of the navy, 
 and is ])unisliable for all crimes and offences committed 
 in violation of them durinac his term of service. There 
 is no limitation of time within which he is to be prose- 
 cuted and tried for such offences, but if there were, it 
 would be sufficient to show that the prosecution was 
 eommencod ^vithin the time of limitation. 
 
 "In this case the petitioner was arrested and put in 
 confinement, and charges were preferred against him to 
 the secretary of the navy, Ijefore the expiration of the 
 time of his enlistment ; and this was clearly a suffi- 
 cient commencement of the prosecution to authorize a 
 court-martial to proceed to trial and sentence — notwith- 
 standing the time of service had expired before the 
 court-martial had been convened. There can be no 
 doul)t, I think, that the court-martial have jurisdiction, 
 and that they may legally proceed in the trial on the 
 charges stated in the return. The petitioner must 
 therefore be remanded to the custody of Caj^tain 
 jMorris.^'- 
 
 Upon this decision, the accused, William Walker, was 
 duly tried by the court-martial, upon the charges pre- 
 ferred against him. But it nuist be remembered that 
 the above-fpioted decision covers such cases, and only 
 such, in which the prosecution has T)e('n connnenced he- 
 fore the expiration of tlie pi'isoner s enlistment. 
 
 * De Hart, p. 35. Americau Jurist, April, 1830. 
 
36 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 2(1. Wlieii j^roceedings are commenced after tlie ex- 
 piration of Ills term of service. 
 
 Our laws virtually prohibit any action to be liad, in 
 sucli a case, by a military court. The act of January 
 llth, 1812, section 21, expressly declares that, for the 
 crime of desertion, a " soldier shall and may be tried by 
 a court-martial, and punished, although the term of his 
 enlistment may have elapsed previous to his being ap- 
 prehended or tried," and this is the section that pro- 
 vides penalties " in addition to the penalties mentioned 
 in the rules and articles of war." Such legislation on 
 the part of the law-making j^ower would seem to pre- 
 suppose a want of jurisdiction by courts-martial, in 
 similar cases, under the rules and articles of war, passed 
 April 10th, 1806, and is therefore a bar to the action of 
 military courts, except in the single case of desertion. 
 
CHAPTER lY. 
 
 DISTINCTIVE JURISDICTION— OFFENCES 
 AND PUNISHMENT. 
 
 The gravity of tlie oifence, tlie rank and position of 
 tlie offender, and the punishment denounced, determine 
 THE KIND OF COURT-MARTIAL that has jurisdiction in any 
 particular case. No garrison or regimental court-martial 
 shall liave the power to try capital cases or commission- 
 ed officers.* These cases come under the exclusive cog- 
 nizance of general courts-martial ; and here we find the 
 broad distinction dra^^^l between the superior and the 
 two minor courts. 
 
 From the concluding portion of the G7th article it is 
 evident that aggravated oifences, though not ca])ital, 
 that call for severer punishment than therein stated, 
 should not be brought before these minor com-ts. In 
 deciding, therefore, upon the particular jurisdiction ne- 
 cessary for the trial of a certain offence, A\'here it is left 
 discretionary with the appointing power, the utmost 
 care should be taken to select a court with po^ver suffi- 
 cient to try and to punish to the full measure of the law. 
 In cases of doubt, the safe and only just rule is, to bring 
 the offi'nce l)efore the superior court, tliat the ends of 
 
 * Article G7. Note. — " I am of opinion tliat cadets at tlie Military Academy may 
 be tried liy a regimental or garrison court-martial, according to tlio GtUh and GTth 
 articles of war : because they are not commissioned officers, and belong to a separ- 
 ate and detached corps." Opinions, May 19th, 1821. 
 
38 MILITARY LxVW AXD COUETS-ZMARTIAL. 
 
 justice may be properly met and fully satisfied. If a 
 minor court should discover that a case before it exceeds 
 its power to punish, its duty forces it to stay all further 
 proceedings, and report the facts to the authority that 
 convened it. 
 
 The only court competent to try every description of 
 persons known to the rules and articles of war, and for 
 every offence declared by them, is the general court- 
 martial; and under the 35th article, can receive appeals 
 from regimental courts. It has been followed as a cus- 
 tom and acknowledged as a principle, that while the 
 inferior courts cannot, upon any j)retence, proceed in 
 the investigation of any description of crime which has 
 not been ex23licitly stated as subject to its authority, 
 yet the sujDerior court can, by virtue of its grade, ne- 
 cessarily take cognizance of all military offences what- 
 ever;* thus including those offences that are specified 
 in the law as expressly subject to a regimental court.f 
 But upon the trial and conviction, in such a case, by 
 a general court-martial, the punishment inflicted should 
 be limited to the quantum that could be awarded by 
 a regimental court. The law itself, by bringing those 
 ])articular cases under inferior jurisdiction, has virtually 
 fixed the maximum of j^unishment, in kind and degree, 
 required to satisfy its violation, and therefore no court 
 of superior j^owers should go beyond the clear intent of 
 the law. 
 
 Amount and Nat'irc of Punisliincnt. The rules and 
 articles of war have specified the amount and nature of 
 punishment for many kinds of oftences, and in such cases 
 the court is left no discretion in the event of conviction. 
 
 * Adye, p. 96. f 3<th aud 47th articles of war. 
 
DISTIXCTIVE jnilSDICTION. 39 
 
 The sentence of death is j)roliil)ited by tlie 99tli article, 
 unless expressly autliorized by the " foregoing articles 
 of war," and there are but two cases,* where this sen- 
 tence is not left discretionary witli the general court, 
 but must be inflicted upon conviction. For the crime of 
 desertion the punishment of death has been restricted to 
 time of war, ])y the act of Congress of May 29th, 1830; 
 and stripes which could be awarded for this offence 
 only, have l'>y a recent act of Congress been entirely pro- 
 hibited, in these words, " That flogging as a ])unishment 
 in the army is hereby abolished."f 
 
 By the 84^A article it is enacted, that in cases where 
 a court-martial sentence a commissioned oflicer to be 
 suspended from command, they shall have powder also to 
 sii-s-2?end his ^m?/ and emoluments for the same period. 
 This punishment was usual in the British arm\' i)rior 
 to 1815, but tlie necessary inconvenience to the service 
 arising from the temporary witlidrawal of officers from 
 its active duties, caused its al)andonment. Suspension 
 from rank and pay, besides its injurious effects u})on the 
 service at large, acts unequally upon individuals, and 
 may, in its results, inflic-t the severest punishment in loss 
 of rank u^^on those least ol)noxious to such severity. 
 Forfeiture of pay to an officer of abundant private means 
 may prove but a trifling loss, compared to the terrible 
 deprivation to one who may be exclusively dependent 
 upon it. The utmost care ought, therefore, to be had in 
 the exercise of tliis ])ower, as it might in many instances 
 be productive of evil, and defeat the very ends for which 
 the law was enacted. 
 
 * Article 5oth, and 2d section, article of war. 
 f Act approved August utli, 1861. 
 
40 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MARTI^iL. 
 
 To remedy^ if possible, tlie ill effects of enforcing the 
 requirements of this article, the President recently direct- 
 ed, in general orders,* that general coui-ts-martial, before 
 which the question may properly come, l)e invited to 
 consider whether an eifectual and appropriate 2)enalty 
 may not be inflicted without injury to the service by 
 adjudging a certain loss of rank, instead of a susjjen- 
 sion from rank for a period of time, the effect of which 
 upon the officer is not certain when the sentence is pro- 
 nounced, Init which must operate to the prejudice of 
 the service in removing an officer from duty. 
 
 Non-commissioned officers can 1 )e reduced to the ranhs 
 for certain offences specified in the 39th and 4Sth arti- 
 cles ; and the custom of service has extended the exercise 
 of this authority, so that general, regimental, and gar- 
 rison courts do not limit the application of this punish- 
 ment to these two articles. This right is fully confirmed 
 by the general regulations for the army,f and its exer- 
 cise may be often necessary, as non-commissioned offi- 
 cers cannot be imprisoned or suffer corporeally, before 
 reduction. J 
 
 Regimental courts-martial have, 1^y the 35th article of 
 war, been confided with the special power to investigate 
 complaints of soldiers against their captains or other 
 officers, but as this authority is not punitive in its na- 
 ture, the limited jm'isdiction conferred l)y the 67th arti- 
 cle is not affected thei'eby. 
 
 Article 67 declares that garrison and regimental 
 courts-martial shall not inflict a fine exceeding one 
 month's pay, nor imprison nor put to hard labor for a 
 longer period than one month. This is tlien an acknowl- 
 
 * Xo. 43, Dec. 22d, 1852. f Tar. 79. X ^^r. 78. 
 
DISTINCTIVE JUUISI)ICTI0:N". 41 
 
 edged military punislimeut, wliicli can also he exercised 
 by a general court-martial at its discretion. The princi- 
 ple Dhserved hy civil courts also applies, that " where 
 an offence exists, to Avhich no specific punishment is 
 affixed by statute, fine and imprisonment is the punish- 
 ment." 
 
 Discussion has arisen as to whether a minor court-mar- 
 tial can take cognizance of offences under the 38th arti- 
 cle. The total amount of stoppage of pay, and con- 
 finement, and corporeal ])unishment under the article 
 is not limited, and as this stoppage of pay is tanta- 
 mount to the "fine'' declared in the C7tli article, the 
 jui'isdiction of the minor courts must he confined to 
 cases that come under the general rule limiting them 
 to the infliction of a fine not exceeding one month's pay, 
 etc., and any offence that demands a severer punish- 
 ment will require a general court-martial for its trial. 
 
 Oficjiees. I. The offences over which a general court- 
 martial alone has cognizance, are : 
 
 Art. 27. In case of quarrels, frays, &c., for refusing to 
 obey an officer (though of an inferior rank), or drawing 
 a sword upon him. 
 
 Art. 52. Misbehaving before the enemy, shamefully 
 abandoning his fort, post, &c., casting away his arms, 
 quitting his coloi-s to plunder and pillage. 
 
 Art. 53. Making known the watchword to any per- 
 son not entitled to it, <fec. 
 
 Sec. 2. In time of war, persons not citizens of, or ow- 
 ing allegiance to, the United States, who shall be found 
 lurking as spies, &c. 
 
 II. The offences against which penalties are de- 
 
 * Kent, 370. 
 
42 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-.AIARTIAL. 
 
 noiinced exceeding the i)C)wer of regimental and gar- 
 rison court s-martial to inflict, are : 
 
 Art. 7. Beginning, exciting, causing, or joining in any 
 mutiny or sedition. 
 
 Art. 8. Being present at a mutiny and not endeavor- 
 ing to suppress tlie same, &q. 
 
 Art. 9. Strilvino; or offerino; any violence ac^ainst a su- 
 perior officer, or disobeying any lawful command of liis 
 superior officer. 
 
 Art. 21. Desertion. 
 
 Art. 22. Enlisting in any other regiment, troop, or 
 company, before being regularly discharged. 
 
 Art. 23. Advising or persuading to desert. 
 
 Art. 38. Selling, losing, or spoiling through neglect, 
 his horse, arms, clothes, <fec. 
 
 Art. 46. Sentinel sleeping on post. 
 
 Art. 51. Doing violence to any person who brings 
 provisions, <fec., into camp, when the forces are employed 
 out of the United States. 
 
 Art. 55. Forcing a safeguai'd in foreign parts. 
 
 Art. 56. Relieving the enemy, or knowingly harbor- 
 ing and protecting him. 
 
 Ai-t. 57. Holding correspondence ^A-ith, or giving intel- 
 ligence to the enemy. 
 
 Art. 59. Compelling a commander to surrender. 
 
 In addition to the above, general courts-martial have 
 exclusive jurisdiction in the trial of commissioned offi- 
 cers.* 
 
 Piiiig^iiimeiits. Punishments of every description, 
 which may be inflicted by sentence of either civil or 
 military courts, are regulated in kind and degree by the 
 
 * Article 75. 
 
DISTINCTIVE JURISDICTION^ PUNISmiENTS. 43 
 
 restraining provision of tlie eiglitli article of tlie amend- 
 ments to tlie constitution, which declares tliat " excessive 
 fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punish- 
 ments inflicted." Punishments are cruel when they are 
 vindictive in their character, going, both in kind and 
 degree, beyond the intention and necessity of their 
 infliction for the vindication of law ; they are imumial., 
 in kind only, Avhen unknown to the statutes of the land, 
 or unsanctioned by the customs of the courts." 
 
 Where the punishments for particular oifences are 
 not fixed by the law, but left discretionary with the 
 courts, the above mandate of the constitution must be 
 strictly kept in view, and the benign influence of a man- 
 date from a still hio-her law ouo;ht not to be io-nored, 
 that justice should be tempered with mercy. 
 
 The punishments for military offences, applicable to 
 officers^ as fixed by the rules and articles of war or the 
 custom of service, which general courts-martial may 
 award on conviction, are : 
 
 Deaths in cases specially mentioned in the law. 
 
 Cafiliiering^ accompanied with the declaration that he 
 shall thereby be utterly disabled to have or hold any 
 oflice or employment in the service of the United States. 
 
 Cashiering^ simply. 
 
 Dismissal. 
 
 Susjyension from rank and pay. 
 
 Confinement. 
 
 Reprimand — public or private. 
 
 In the British service a marked difference really exists 
 between cashiering and disinissal as punishments, as is 
 shown by the general order promulgating the sentence 
 
 * Dc Hart, p. 68. 
 
44 ]\IILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 of Captain Barnes, of the 89tli regiment, which states 
 that " his royal highness has not considered it expedient 
 to give effect to the recommendation of the court in the 
 prisoner's behalf, further than to mitigate the term of 
 cashiering into that of dismissal from his majesty's 
 servicer * 
 
 This distinction is held to be coiTect by many in our 
 service, and with reason, as our articles have been 
 drawn, sometimes bodily, from the British mutiny act 
 and articles of war. Our articles, however, make no 
 such distinction in terms, nor with regard to the greater 
 or less gravity of offences for which these are imposed, — • 
 wherever future disability to hold office is intended, 
 such intention is clearly expressed. In framing the law, 
 cashiering and dismissal were denounced in certain ar- 
 ticles, because contained therein when copied from the 
 British as they undoubtedly were, and the difference 
 in meaning, therefore, can only be based on the custom 
 of the British service. 
 
 The legal punishment for soldiers by sentence of a 
 com^t-martial, according to the offence, and the juris- 
 diction of the court, are : death ; confinement ; confine- 
 ment on bread and water diet ; solitary confinement ; 
 hard labor ; ball and chain ; forfeiture of pay and allow- 
 ances ; discharges from service ; and reprimands. Soli- 
 tary confinement, or confinement on bread and water, 
 shall not exceed fourteen days at a time, with intervals 
 between the periods of such confinement not less than 
 such periods ; and not exceeding eighty-four days in 
 any one year.f 
 
 Kon- commissioned Officers may be reduced to the 
 
 * Siimuons, p. 291. \ General Regulations, par. 895. 
 
DISTINCTIVE JURISDICTION PUNISHMENTS. 45 
 
 ranks by tlie sentence of any court-martial, and in addi- 
 tion are subject to any of tlie above-mentioned punish- 
 ments ^vliick may be awarded to sokliers. However, 
 wkere a non-connnissioned officer is to be punisked by 
 confinement, kard kxbor, or ball and ckain, lie must first 
 be reduced, as it is contrary to tke principles of the 
 service, and derogator}' to tke dignity of their ])o.sition, 
 to cause non-commissioned officers to l)e tkus punisked. 
 Tke puniskments, tkerefore, wkick a court-martial 
 may sentence a prisoner to suffer, are clearly under- 
 stood, and are derived from express statute or tke cus- 
 tom of war. Sliould it kappen tkat an offence falling 
 "witkin tke jurisdiction of a court-martial, he not pro- 
 vided for by a special penalty, but left to be deter- 
 mined by tke discretion of tke court, suck sentence 
 must be in accordance witk tke common law of tke land, 
 or tke custom of war in like cases ; a departure from tkis 
 would make tke sentence unusual, and as suck, unlawful."^ 
 
 * De Hart, p. 195. 
 
CHAPTER Y. 
 
 AEREST AND CONFINEMENT. 
 
 The yriii Article of War directs that " wlienever an 
 officer shall be charged with a crime, he shall be arrested 
 and confined in his barracks, quarters, or tent, and de- 
 prived of his sword by the commanding officer,'' thus 
 descril^ing the preliminary steps to be taken for the pros- 
 ecution of offences. "And any officer who shall leave 
 his confinement before he shall be set at liberty by his 
 commanding officer, or by a suj^erior officer, shall be 
 cashiered." 
 
 Although the law makes no mention of any diffi?rence 
 in the nature of arrests in order to trial, a difference is 
 established by the custom of the army according to the 
 degree and measure of the offence. An officer accused 
 of a capital crime, or any offence of which the penalty 
 is so severe as to afford a natural temptation to escape 
 from justice, ought to be detained in a state of confine- 
 ment, as secure as the closest civil imprisonment. If 
 the offence is of a lighter nature, the presumption is, 
 that the officer whose character is thus impeached must 
 be solicitous to obtain a judicial investigation of his 
 conduct," and he is therefore, either placed in close 
 arrest, that is, limited to his quarters or tent ; or al- 
 lowed to be in aiTest at large, that is, with limits ex- 
 
 * Tytler. 
 
ARREST AND CONFINEMENT. 4Y 
 
 tended to tlie garrison, camp, or other defined bound- 
 aries. 
 
 The general regulations provide that in ordinary cases, 
 and where inconvenience to the service would result from 
 it, a medical officer will not be put in arrest until the 
 court-martial for his trial convenes. They also provide 
 that officers are not to be placed in arrest for slight offen- 
 ces, and that close confinement is not to be resorted to 
 unless under circumstances of an aggravated character.* 
 
 The depriving an officer of his sword, as directed in 
 the article, is generally omitted, but is, nevertheless, 
 considered to have taken place, and it is invariably the 
 custom for an officer in arrest to ap])ear without his 
 sword. The arrest is usually imposed l3y the com- 
 manding officer himself, or through the ministration of 
 his staff officer, and their mere verbal order to that 
 effect is sufficient to prevent him from exercising even 
 the minor functions of his office. 
 
 Broiicii of Arrest is descri])ed by the article, as leav- 
 ing his confinement l)efore he shall be set at liberty by 
 proper authority, and ccishierlng is denounced as the 
 penalty, leaving to courts-martial no discretion whatever. 
 The variety of o])inions that have Ijeen held as to the 
 exact meaning and import of what constitutes breach 
 of arrest, are not founded upon the clear and explicit 
 words of the statute. Cashiering is affixed to the of 
 fence of " leaving his confinement," in express terms, and 
 to no other offence ; and not even by im])lication can any 
 other misdemeanor be presumed as flowing from the 
 plain wording of the la^v. Tlie assumption of connuand, 
 wearing a sw^ord, or visiting officially his commanding 
 
 *Par. 222, 223 and 224. 
 
48 MILITARY LAW AKD COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 officer unless sent for, while in arrest and within his lim- 
 its, are evident improprieties prohibited by the general 
 regulations of the army, and therefore lial^le to })unish- 
 ment; but they are not breaches of aiTest, unless in 
 the words of the article, he "leaves his confinement 
 before he shall be set at liberty by his commanding 
 officer, or by his superior officer." The practice of the 
 British service upholds this view of the question. A 
 case is cited, in which " Lieutenant Naylor was cashiered 
 for breaking his aiTest ; and Lieutenant Williams was 
 cashiered for, that he, when commanding a guard over 
 a jDrisoner committed to his charge, did allow such 
 prisoner to leave his place of confinement."* 
 
 The 27th article enacts that all officers of what con- 
 dition soever, have power to part and quell all " quar- 
 rels, fi'ays, and disorders," and to order officers in arrest, 
 even though the latter be of superior rank. " Officers of 
 what condition soever," includes non-commissioned as 
 well as commissioned officers ; and the law requires im- 
 plicit obedience on the part of all those who, by their 
 conduct, render themselves amenable to the exercise of 
 such extraordinary powers hj a junior. The assump- 
 tion of a present command by the inferior, is tolerated 
 rather than that the military state should be endanger- 
 ed by violent evils, which, if not instantly repressed, 
 might result in irremedial)le mischief. This assumption 
 is not, however, allowed to continue longer than the 
 necessity itself exists, that is, until the superior officer 
 of the parties arrested can be made acquainted with the 
 circumstances.f 
 
 The authority of this article can and should be ex- 
 
 * Simmons, p. 120. f O'Brien, p. 108. 
 
AEEEST AND CONFINEMENT. 49 
 
 tended to any glaring impropriety, sucli as drunkenness 
 on parade, that properly comes under the head of disor- 
 ders. It was decided by high authority in the British 
 service, that circumstances may occur even upon parade, 
 to justify a junior officer in taking upon himself the 
 strong responsibility of j^lacing his commander in ar- 
 rest ; such a measure must alone rest upon the respon- 
 sibility of the officer who adopts it, and there are cases 
 wherein the discipline and welfare of the service require 
 that it should be assumed. 
 
 By virtue of the 78th article, " non-commissioned offi- 
 cers and soldiers charged with crimes, shall be con- 
 fined until tried by a court-martial, or released by 
 proper authority." A distinction necessarily exists be- 
 tween the nature of the arrest of officers and of sol- 
 diers — the same security for his appearance on trial not 
 existing in the two cases. By the general regulations 
 of the army, non-commissioned officers are not to be sent 
 to the guard-room and mixed with privates during con- 
 finement, but be considered as placed in arrest, except 
 in aggravated cases where escape may be apprehended.* 
 With private soldiers, confinement is the usual mode of 
 securing their persons. 
 
 The 80th article ordains that " no officer commanding 
 a guard, or provost marshal, shall refuse to receive or 
 keep any prisoner committed to his charge by an offi- 
 cer belonging to the forces of the United States ; pro- 
 vided the officer committing shall, at the same time, 
 deliver an account in writing, signed by himself, of the 
 crime with which the said prisoner is charged." 
 
 The requirements of this article are unmistakable, and 
 
50 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 the proviso would seem to admit tlie riglit of the officer 
 of tlie guard, to reject a prisoner when no written state- 
 ment of the crime charged was submitted. But the in- 
 terpretation given in the English army, seems more in 
 unison with the demands of the service and the dictates 
 of common sense. In that service, the omission to make 
 the written statement, or deliver in a crime as it is usu- 
 ally termed, would not justify the rejection or release of 
 a prisoner, or exempt the officer of the guard from lia- 
 bility to the penalties attached to the 81st article. It 
 may sometimes be impracticable to make the written 
 statement on the instant, and certainly the committing 
 officer should be allo^ved reasonable time in which to 
 prepare it; and as the general regulations* expressly 
 direct that all prisoners under guard, without written 
 charges, shall be released by the officer of the day at 
 guard-mounting, no person confined without cause could 
 suffer, at the worst, the inconvenience of durance vile 
 for a longer period than twenty-four hours. To prevent 
 illegal confinement is indubitably the intention of the 
 article, and the safe rule to be observed is, not to receive 
 a prisoner without a written statement, unless he is 
 amenable to military law, and is committed by an officer 
 who is well known to the officer of the guard as having 
 authority to do so. 
 
 The 79tii article declares that " no officer or soldier 
 who shall be put in arrest shall continue in confine- 
 ment more than eight days, or until such time as a 
 court-martial can be assembled." 
 
 The object and intent of this article is to deprive the 
 commanding officer of the right of imposing confine- 
 
 * Par. 216, cd. 1857. 
 
ARREST AND CONFINESIENT. 51 
 
 ments, except for trial, beyond the period of eight days. 
 It allows time for the examination of the facts and cir- 
 cumstances of his case, so as to decide whether or not it 
 be one that demands judicial investigation. The pris- 
 oner may be released at any time short of the term of 
 eight days, without trial, but the article is decided that 
 confinement beyond that period must continue until a 
 court-martial can be assembled. 
 
 It has long been a settled principle both in the Brit- 
 ish service and our own, that no officer has a right to 
 demand a court-martial on himself or others — the author- 
 ity competent to order the court being the judge of its 
 necessity ; nor after having been arrested has he a right 
 to demand a trial, or persist in considering himself in 
 arrest after he shall have been released by proper author- 
 ity. If, however, the officer should think himself ag- 
 grieved by the arrest, or by charges that might have been 
 preferred against him and afterward withdrawn, he may 
 in either case seek redress under the Slth article of war. 
 
CHAPTER YI. 
 
 CHAKGES AND SPECIFICATIONS. 
 
 A military Charge is a plain, brief, and certain nar- 
 rative of tlie offence committed, and of tlie necessary 
 circumstances that concur to ascertain the fact and its 
 nature.* It is of two parts : the charge, and the speci- 
 fications. The charge designates the crime, or offence 
 in law, as mutiny ; the specification alleges or sj^ecifies 
 the act, mth time, place, and circumstance. 
 
 CJiarge. " The commander who prefers a charge may, 
 in the exercise of a just and legal discretion, when the 
 act may fall under different articles of war, elect under 
 which to charge it, or may charge it variously as in the 
 several counts of an indictment. But under whatever 
 article a charge is laid, the specification to it must state 
 the act in terms appropriate to that article, and not in 
 terms which necessarily refer to some other article ; and 
 where the act cannot be stated or described except in the 
 language of a particular article of war, the charge is 
 confined to that article. In this regard, the rule of plead- 
 ing is not merely technical, but is essential to the legal 
 statements of offences. Some writers on military law 
 have laid the -rule down so strictly, as to disallow any 
 resort to the general article in cases of offences specified 
 in the other articles. " When an offence is of that specific 
 
 * Lord Uale. 
 
CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS. 53 
 
 quality as to he reducible to a particular article of war^ 
 to which a hnoivn and distinct penalty is attached^ it 
 must he prosecuted under such article, that the intent of 
 the law and the purposes of justice may he answer ed^ 
 Samuel and Hough. Tliey consider that in such cases 
 the law restrains the discretion of commanders and 
 courts, and that the general article " holds out not a sub- 
 stitute but a substantive course of prosecution for offences 
 not otherivise declaredy 
 
 If the rule does not obtain so strictly in our service, 
 still a specification appropriate to a particular article 
 only, cannot be laid under the general article to evade 
 the penalty prescribed in the particular article."* 
 
 For instance, an offence may be charged under the gen- 
 eral article, the 99th, and triable by a garrison court- 
 martial, when the specification sets out in distinct terms 
 an act in violation of the 46 th article of war, a capital of- 
 fence, and only triable by a general court-martial. This 
 may be done to avoid the consequences that follow the 
 violation of the particular article, which course of pro- 
 cedure is veiy properly prohibited by the above deci- 
 sion. When, therefore, the specified facts and circum- 
 stances clearly point to a particular article, with a dis- 
 tinct penalty attached, the prosecution must be had 
 under that article, and the charge should be expressed 
 in the terms used therein ; but -where the offence alleged 
 is a mere disorder or neglect, not specifically provided 
 for, it must be charged under the general article as "con- 
 duct to the prejudice of good order and military disci- 
 pline." 
 
 The settled usage of military courts permits a prisoner 
 
 * G. 0. Xo. 18, war department, July 23d, 1859. 
 
54 jnLITARY LAW AT^D COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 to be placed on tis trial, for several distinct offences at 
 the same time. In such cases, eacli distinct offence must 
 be made the burden of a separate charge and its speci- 
 fication, although but one sentence is adjudged for all 
 the offences tried upon one arraignment. But distinct 
 offences on separate trials by the same, or by different 
 courts, may each receive its appropriate penalty. 
 
 Specifications. The specifications — one or more — to 
 the charge, must be : 
 
 1st. Brief, clear and explicit. All the ingredients of 
 the offence with which the accused is charged, th^facts^ 
 circumstances and intent constituting it, must be set forth 
 with certainty and precision, without any repugnancy 
 and inconsistency, and the accused charged directly and 
 positively with having committed it.* As every crime 
 or offence consists of certain acts done or omitted, under 
 certain circumstances, it does not suffice that the ]:>risoner 
 be charged generally with having committed it, but all 
 the facts and circumstances must be set forth specifi- 
 cally^ and the offence must appear on the face of the 
 specification to be a distinct substantive offence. 
 
 Particularity of description would seem to be for the 
 interest of the party accused, if he be innocent, or of 
 doubtful guiltiness, and for the interest of the service if 
 he be guilty ; and therefore advantageous on both sides. 
 It woidd enable the accused to determine the species 
 of offence for which he is to be tried, and prepare his 
 defence accordingly ; and subsequently em230wer him to 
 plead an autrefois acquit or autrefois convict in bar of 
 another prosecution for the same offence. 
 
 Besides this, fa<its which are distinct in theii- nature, 
 
 * Archbold's Criminal Pleadings, p. 6. 
 
CHARGES AND SPECIFICATION'S. 55 
 
 should be set forth under separate and distinct specifica- 
 tions. 
 
 As to the certainty and intent of the specification, 
 the meaning of the words must be construed according 
 to their ordinary and usual acceptation, and technical 
 terms according to their technical meaning. The weight 
 to be attached to any technical terms used, must depend 
 upon the importance given to them by previous de- 
 cisions in the practice of courts. If the sense of a word 
 be ambiguous in the ordinary acceptation of it, it should 
 be construed according as the context and subject mat- 
 ter require it to be, so as to render the whole sensible 
 and consistent. 
 
 Written instniments, where they form a part of the 
 gist of the offence charged, must be set out verbatim. 
 Where part only of a ^vritten instrument is included 
 in the offence, that part alone is necessary to be in- 
 serted. 
 
 The intention of the party at the time he committed 
 the offence is often a necessary ingredient of it ; and in 
 such cases it is as necessary to state it, as any other of 
 the facts and circumstances which constitute the offence. 
 
 In cases where the offences are created by statute, the 
 statute contains a definition of the offence ; and the of- 
 fence consists of the commission or omission of certain 
 acts, under certain circumstances, and in some cases, 
 with a particular intent. A specification therefore, for 
 an offence against the statute, must declare the accused 
 to have committed or omitted the acts under the circum- 
 stances, and with the intent mentioned in the statute. 
 This can be best effected by the strict use of the very 
 words of the law, thus precluding all question as to the 
 
56 MILITAEY LAW AND COUETS-MARTIAL. 
 
 expression intended ; althougli it is held, that where a 
 word not in the statute is substituted for one that is, and 
 the word thus substituted is equivalent to the word 
 used in the statute, or is of more extensive signification, 
 and includes it, the specification will be sufficient.* 
 
 2d. Certain as to the Party accused. The accused must 
 be described by his rank. Christian name, surname, and 
 the company, regiment, or corps to which he belongs. 
 The surname may be such as the accused has usually 
 gone by or acknowledged; and if there be a doubt 
 which one of two names is his real surname, the second 
 may be added after an alias dictus^ thus John Smith 
 otherwise called John Brown. 
 
 Where the identity of a prisoner fully and indisputa- 
 bly appears, it is quite immaterial whether he is tried 
 by his real name or by a fictitious one, or by both names 
 under an alias. If the circumstances of his having been 
 known by different names have arisen from mere mis- 
 take or from accident, the law will not j)ermit such mis- 
 takes or accidents to defeat the ends of justice. But if 
 he has designedly assumed a false name for a sinister 
 purpose, then the maxim applies, that no man, whether 
 in a criminal proceeding or elsewhere, shall be allowed 
 to avail himself of his own ^vrong.f 
 
 3d. Ccrtaiai as to the Person a;;ainst ^vhoiii the Offence 
 was committed. In the case of offences against the 
 persons or property of individuals, the Christian name 
 and surname, with rank and addition if he has any, 
 must be stated if the party injured be known. Should, 
 however, the name of the injured party be unknown, he 
 
 * Archbold's Criminal Pleading, 15, 25. 
 
 \ Judge Advocate General Sir Robert Grant. 
 
CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS. 67 
 
 may be described as a person ^uihiown. Sucli cases 
 may arise under tlie 32d and 33d articles of war. 
 
 4tll. Certain as to Time and Place. Every material 
 fact specified must be alleged to have been done on a 
 particular day, and at a particular place. An offence of 
 omission cannot indeed be said strictly to liave been 
 committed at any time or place, unless the law violated 
 state a certain time and place, when both should be 
 specified. But in offences of commission, every act 
 which is a necessary ingredient of it, must be laid with 
 time and place. This is the rule as laid down for 
 courts of criminal jurisdiction, and should be followed 
 by com'ts-martial as closely as the circumstances of each 
 particular case will admit. In the practice of courts- 
 martial, some degree of latitude is, however, allowed, 
 though minuteness and precision are required whenever 
 it is possible to be thus particular. 
 
 It is a1 u'-ays possible to state the circumstance oi place 
 with much more exactness, and this should not be dis- 
 pensed with in the framing of specifications. When 
 doubts are indulged as to the precise time and place, the 
 act may l:>e specified as committed " at or near such a 
 place," and " on or about such a day." The rule recent- 
 ly fixed for the guidance of our courts-martial is that, 
 although in the specification to charges, time and place 
 ought to be laid with as much certainty and truth as 
 may be practicable, still it is sufficient in law to prove 
 the offence to have been committed at any other place 
 and time within the jurisdiction of the coui't." 
 
 The following case of Captain Trenor will aid in ex- 
 emplifying the foregoing : 
 
 * G. 0. No. 16, -war department, June 9th, 1853. 
 
58 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 " Charge 2c/. Drunkenness ou dut}'." 
 
 " Specification. In this, that the said Captain Eustice 
 Trenor, of the 1st regiment of dragoons, when on duty 
 as officer of the day, at Fort Leavenworth, between the 
 1st day of September and the 31st day of December, 
 1840, was drunk." 
 
 On being arraigned the accused pleaded as follows : 
 Captain Trenor " declines pleading to the 2d charge and 
 its specification, inasmuch as it includes such a length of 
 time as to prevent the possibility of either disproving 
 it, or defending himself against it, and he therefore hopes 
 the court will not entertain it." 
 
 The objections of the accused being sustained by the 
 court, the 2c7 charge and its specification were accord- 
 ingly thrown out. The proceedings in the case were 
 submitted to, and ajiproved by the President of the 
 United States.* 
 
 Considering that the trial of this case did not take 
 place until December, 1841, one year and more after the 
 time when the offence was alleged to have been commit- 
 ted; that the wide range of time — four months — in 
 specifying the act was unnecessary, in a matter of de- 
 tail for officer of the day, which is always upon record ; 
 and that it is highly reprehensible to accumulate accusa- 
 tions against an officer; the decision of the court was 
 undoubtedly correct. 
 
 * G. 0. No. 4, war department, January 3 1st, 1842. 
 
CHAPTER YII. 
 OF THE COUET AND PARTIES TO THE TRIAL. 
 
 The discipline and reputation of the army are deeply 
 involved in tlie manner in wLieli military courts are 
 conducted, and justice administered ; and the duties of 
 officers appointed to sit as members of courts-maiiial are 
 of a grave and important character. 
 
 The President of a court-martial, besides his duties 
 and privileges as member, is the organ of the court, to 
 keep order, and conduct its business. In all their de- 
 liberations, the law secures the equality of the meml^ers. 
 
 The 7 6th article of war does not confer on a court- 
 martial the power to punish its own members. For dis- 
 orderly conduct, a member is liable as in other offences 
 against military discipline — improper words are to be 
 taken down, and any disorderly conduct of a member 
 reported to the authority convening the court. * 
 
 RespoBisibiiity of members. Although the proceed- 
 ings of a court-martial, duly constituted and organized, 
 cannot be dictated to, or interfered with, by the highest 
 military authority, yet the members thereof are collec- 
 tively and individually responsil)le to the federal courts 
 of civil judicature for any al)use of power or illegal pro- 
 ceedings. McAi-thur cites the case of Lieutenant Frye, 
 of the Marines, in 1743, who received from a civil court 
 
 * General regulations, par. 888 and 889. 
 
60 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 » 
 
 a verdict in his favor for £1,000 damages, against the 
 president of a court-martial which had convicted him on 
 illegal evidence — the dei^ositions of illiterate persons 
 reduced to A\Titing several days l^efore the trial The 
 judge moreover informed him, that he was still at 
 liberty to bring action against any of the memhers of the 
 court-martial. 
 
 In Great Britain, the superior courts of common law 
 exercise a supervisory or quasi appellate jurisdiction 
 over military courts. What relation the Supreme Court, 
 or other courts of the United States, have to courts-mar- 
 tial, is a question which does not appear to have under- 
 gone adjudication in the United States. In the states, 
 however, the relation of the ordinary courts to the mili- 
 tary ones has been the subject of much and frequent 
 consideration. Thus, in Massachusetts the law is set- 
 tled, that parties who have legal ground to complain of 
 the doings of military courts, are to get their remedy by 
 action at law for damages, if they have right to any ; 
 which corresponds with the view of the Supreme Coiui: 
 of the United States, where trespass was maintained to 
 recover damages for an act done by a court-martial 
 '"''dearly wltliout its jurisdiction^^ 
 
 The jMdge Advocate. There is a diversity of opin- 
 ion among military writers, as to the responsibility of 
 the judge advocate for his opinions given in court. 
 Captain Hughes, in his " Duties of Judge Advocates," 
 states that Captain Simmons has expressed his opinion 
 in opposition to all other writers on military law : " that 
 the judge advocate is not responsible to any court of 
 
 * Cusliing, Opin., April 7th, 1854 (ex parte Dunbar, XIV. Mass. K., 393; Wise 
 vs. Withers, 1 Craucli, 330). 
 
THE COURT ATfD TAKTIES. 61 
 
 justice for the o})iiii()u he may give," whatever degree of 
 deference may be due to his advice. The weight of 
 British authority is undoubtedly in favor of his respon- 
 sibility, and the words of the mutiny act directly ap- 
 plicable to the point in discussion seem also to favor 
 the affirmative. De Hart and O'Brien, the only Amer- 
 ican authorities, insist upon the negative view of the 
 question. The unreasonableness of holding judge ad- 
 vocates in our service responsible, appointed as they 
 usually are from the junior officers of the army, and fre- 
 quently without experience and with inferior qualifica- 
 tions for the discharge of such important duties, would 
 seem to border on the ridiculous. His opinions, in the 
 majority of cases, would weigh less than that of any 
 member of the court. This is, however, not a question 
 of expediency, but of law. The law directs the judge 
 advocate to prosecute in the name of the United States. 
 The court is not required to decide points of law and 
 fact according to his advice or opinion. He is a mere 
 prosecutor^ not a judge ; and the members of the court, 
 and they alone, are, by their oaths, to administer justice 
 according to the provisions of the articles of war, and 
 in case of doubt, according to their consciences, the 
 best of their understandings, and the custom of war in 
 like cases — and not according to the understanding and 
 conscience of the judge advocate. In his military 
 character as an officer, he is responsible to the authority 
 who convenes the court, or revises the proceedings, for 
 the proper discharge of his duty. 
 
 Tlie act of Congress approved March 2d, 1S49, au- 
 thorizes the President, by and Avith the advice and con- 
 sent of the Senate, to appoint a suitable person sl^ judge 
 
62 MILITARY LAA\^ AKD COUETS-MARTIAL. 
 
 advocate for tlie anny, to be taken from tlie captains in 
 tlie army, wlio shall have the brevet rank, pay and 
 emoluments of a major of cavalry. And the 69th arti- 
 cle of war enacts that the judge advocate, or some person 
 deputed by liim, or by the general, or officer command- 
 ing tlie army, detachment, or garrison, stall prosecute, 
 &c. It is by virtue of this article that judge advocates 
 are appointed, to assist at courts-martial, by the officer 
 ordering the court. His appointment can, however, be 
 deputed to an inferior when the convenience and necessi- 
 ties of tlie service may demand it ; — but his presence 
 and assistance are essential to the jurisdiction of a gen- 
 eral court-maitial. 
 
 The Prisoner. A court-martial has no control over 
 the nature of the arrest of a prisoner, except as regards 
 his personal freedom in court ; they cannot, even with 
 a \dew to facilitate his defence, interfere to cause the 
 limits of a close arrest to be extended. The officer in 
 command is alone responsible for the discharge of this 
 duty, and a case is cited in which the commanding officer 
 was justified in refusing to accede to the suggestion of a 
 court-mai-tial to grant a prisoner such indulgence as 
 might facilitate the examination of witnesses, and there- 
 by enable him to enter earlier on his defence. 
 
 It is held by all military writers, as a settled custom, 
 that the prisoner should be furnished with a cojnj of the 
 charges some time anterior to the trial. He ought to 
 have a full knowledge of the accusations preferred 
 against him, and ample time afforded him previous to 
 his arraignment, to decide upon his line of defence, and 
 upon the evidence and arguments that he may deem ex- 
 pedient to meet these accusations. Should the copy 
 
THE COUET AND PARTIES. 63 
 
 supplied liim differ materially from the charges and 
 specifications upon wliich he is arraigned, justice and 
 reason would seem to demand that additional time be 
 given him by the court, within which to arrange his 
 defence in conformity with the altered state of the accu- 
 sations. Extreme cases, where the necessity of immedi- 
 ate example is imminent, may justify a departure from 
 this well established custom. 
 
 It has been the practice of the service to furnish the 
 prisoner, previous to his trial, with a list of the ivltnesses 
 for the prosecution, though the right to demand such 
 a list is not conceded. The right does not, certainly, rest 
 on law, but as all the witnesses are to be summoned by 
 the judge advocate, who is the prosecutor, and the names 
 of witnesses for the defence will thus become known to 
 him, it is but just and proper that the same privilege be. 
 allowed the prisoner by granting him a list of all who 
 are to appear against him. The rule was laid down by 
 high English authority, that it was not the duty of a 
 judge advocate, in all case-s^ to furnish a prisoner, pre- 
 vious to the trial, with the names and designations of 
 the witnesses by whose testimony any act objected 
 against him is to be proved.* And Kennedy does not 
 deem it requisite that the prisoner should be furnished 
 with the names of the witnesses on the part of the pros- 
 ecution, nor the prosecutor with those on the part of 
 the defence. Still, all other authorities advocate the 
 custom as founded on equity and convenience — as allow- 
 ing time for the appearance of witnesses after l)eing duly 
 summoned, and affording to Ijoth parties ecpial oppor- 
 tunities of questioning their competency and credibility. 
 
 * sir Charles Morgan. 
 
64 SOLITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 It must be ])orne in mind that on Britisli courts-mar- 
 tial, the judge advocate is not the prosecutor * and may, 
 therefore, hold both lists, without either party being 
 aware of the witnesses required by the other. 
 
 The general regulationsf leave to the judge advocate 
 some discretion in the summoning of the ivitnesses, as it 
 directs that he shall not summon any witness at the 
 expense of the United States, nor any officer of the 
 army, without the order of the court, unless satisfied 
 that his testimony is material and necessary to the ends 
 of justice. This is a wise provision, as, from the excite- 
 ment and anxiety incident to his position, the prisoner 
 may, without sufficient reason, deem certain individuals 
 essential to his defence. Should the judge advocate re- 
 fuse to summon a witness, the prisoner can appeal to the 
 court-martial, from the decision of the judge advocate. 
 
 Neither the prosecution nor defence are confined to 
 the list of witnesses furnished prior to the arraignment, 
 nor are they forced to require testimony from all. At 
 any stage of the proceedings, new witnesses can be 
 called, and any, or all of those summoned can be dis- 
 missed without examination. 
 
 Tytler has assumed the necessity of furnishing the 
 accused with a correct detail of the onemhers of the court- 
 martial. As the accused has the right of challenge, it 
 is absolutely necessary to its efficient exercise, that he 
 should have every facility accorded to enable him to 
 show cause, especially as peremptory challenges are pro- 
 hibited in military courts. To administer justice is the 
 object for which courts-martial are convened, and as 
 every prisoner is supposed to be innocent until proved 
 
 * Articlo 1G3 British articles of war. f Par. 890. 
 
THE COURT AND PARTIES. 65 
 
 to be guilty, every privilege, facility, and convenience 
 sliould be allowed to liim consistent with the lionest and 
 faithful administration of the laws. Except in extreme 
 cases, therefore, copies of the charges and detail of the 
 court, and a list of witnesses for the prosecution, should 
 be given to the prisoner a reasonable time before his 
 arraignment for trial. 
 
 Amicus Curiae. Article VI. amendments to the con- 
 stitution, declares that "in all criminal prosecutions, 
 the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for 
 his defence." And all the writers on military law, with- 
 out exception, admit it to be the custom to allow a pris- 
 oner to have counsel, or at least an amicus curiae^ or 
 friend of the court, to assist him in conducting his de- 
 fence. The assistance is strictly restricted to giving ad- 
 vice, framing questions ^vhich are handed by the accused 
 to the judge advocate on separate slips of paper, or 
 offering, in ^^Titing, through the same channel, any legal 
 objections that may be rendered necessary l)y the course 
 of the proceedings. It is an admitted maxim on all 
 courts-martial, that the counsel is not to address the 
 court, or interfere in any manner in the proceedings ; his 
 presence is only tolerated as a friend of the prisoner. 
 
 Courts-martial have always held and exercised the 
 riglit of ohjectinrj to any particular person designated, 
 and to revoke the permission, when granted, in case of 
 any misconduct on the part of the counsel. The exer- 
 cise of this right is rendered particularly necessaiy in 
 the trial of soldiers, who often select as friend, from 
 among themselves, who proves to lie a most troublesome 
 character, and more likc^ly to prejudice the cause of the 
 prisoner than aid iu making a good defence. 
 
66 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 If tlie judge advocate finds it essential to tlie proper 
 conduct of tlie trial and the surer furtherance of justice, 
 to request that the accuser, who has been du'ectly affected 
 in his authority or person by the transgression, remain 
 in court, he may, after having given his evidence, be 
 permitted to do so. This is, however, a matter of con- 
 venience, and not essential to the ^proceedings ; and the 
 accuser is confined in his assistance to mere suggestions 
 made to the judge advocate, which the latter may fol- 
 low or not, at his discretion. 
 
 Interpreter. It is sometimes necessary to employ an 
 interpreter, for the purpose of translating the evidence 
 given by the witnesses. In such a case, he may be in- 
 troduced and sworn at any period of the j^roceedings, if 
 required by either party or by the court. 
 
 The parties before the court — that is, the judge advo- 
 cate as prosecutor, and the prisoner — may claim the 
 benefit of its aggregate opinion^ on any mooted point of 
 law or custom arising out of the proceedings, and in 
 the decision of which both parties may be interested. 
 
 The Rceord. The proceedings of a general court-mar- 
 tial are recorded by the judge advocate ; and of inferior 
 courts by the junior member or recorder. Not only is 
 the evidence taken down, but every incidental trans- 
 action is noted on the face of the record. And courts- 
 martial have the right, which may be exercised at dis- 
 cretion, to forbid any other record to be kept, and thus 
 prevent a daily publication of the proceedings, ^vhich 
 mio-ht have the baneful tendency to pervert the pul)lic 
 mind in regard to the trial and its results, and more- 
 over, liave improper influence on the witnesses whose 
 testimony is yet to be delivered. 
 
THE COURT AND PARTIES. 67 
 
 Court Assembles. The order convening a general 
 court-martial having been issued, and the hour for as- 
 sembling having arrived, the members take their places 
 at the table according to rank, on the right and left of 
 the presiding officer. The president is seated at the 
 head of the table, and the judge advocate immediately 
 opposite to him. The prisoner and his counsel have a 
 table and seats assigned them, with conveniences for 
 wi'iting, on the right hand of the judge advocate, and 
 the witness is seated near the judge advocate, and usu- 
 ally on his left. 
 
CHAPTEE YIII. 
 
 CHALLENGES AND OATHS. 
 
 Ctaalleiiges. When a member sliall be challenged by 
 a prisoner, he must state his cause of challenge, of which 
 the court shall, after clue deliberation, determine the 
 relevancy or validity, and decide accordingly ; and no 
 challenge to more than one member at a time shall be 
 received by the court.* Pere?7ipto?y chaRen<jes^ that is, 
 challenges without cause assigned, are unknown to conrts- 
 martial, being prohibited by the above-quoted article. 
 
 Challenges to the array^ are, at once, an exception 
 to the entire court. This might arise either from the 
 want of competent authority in the officer ordering the 
 court, or in its illegal organization, or from the lack 
 of comj^etency and jurisdiction in the court to proceed 
 with the trial, were such challenges permitted by the 
 law. Although the accused may object to every indi- 
 vidual composing the court, challenges to more than one 
 member at a time cannot be entertained — he cannot 
 challenge the court generally ; "until sworn in, it is not 
 competent to decide uj^on questions in the nature of 
 pleas in l)ar of trial. "f 
 
 When a member is challenged^ the prisoner must state 
 his objections in fall. This, together with the assertions 
 or declarations, if any, of the challenged i^arty, and of 
 
 * 7lst article of war. \ Simmons, p. 193, note. 
 
CHALLENGES AND OATIIS. 69 
 
 tlie "witnesses adduced, are committed to ^^Titing as j^art 
 of the record ; and witli closed doors, tlie court delib- 
 erates and decides on the objections assigned. The chal- 
 lenged member always withdraws on the clearing of the 
 court, in order to promote freedom of discussion. Upon 
 reopening the doors, the parties are called in, and the 
 decision is made knoAvn through the judge advocate. 
 The challenged member then resumes his seat, or with- 
 di'aws altogether and is replaced by a supernumerary, 
 if any be detailed. 
 
 The objections of the accused, the assertions of the 
 challenged party, and the declarations of the witnesses, 
 are not made to the court under the solemnity of an 
 oath, because prior to being itself sworn the court has 
 deliberative capacity only, competent to decide on the 
 validity of challenges, while the law requires each mem- 
 ber to take a prescribed oath as a necessary qualifica- 
 tion for the exercise of judicial authority, and until it is 
 clothed with its judicial power, no oath can be adminis- 
 tered by it. 
 
 When it is practicahle to do so, all cliallenges should 
 he admitted. It is not only right to be as mild as possi- 
 ble toward a prisoner, but it is right also to let the pub- 
 lic and the prisoner see that such is the case. A culprit 
 should never be made to appear in the light of a martyr; 
 for when this takes place, much of the advantage of pun- 
 ishment is lost.* And Sir Edward Blackstouef remarks 
 that upon challenges for cause shown, if the reason as- 
 signed prove insufficient to set aside the juror, perhaps 
 the bare questioning his indiiference may provoke re- 
 sentment. Care should be taken, however, not to admit 
 
 * Sir C. J. Napier, p. 94. f 4 Coramentary, p. 352. 
 
TO MILITARY LAW AND C0UET3-MARTIAL. 
 
 frivolous causes as valid o])jections, as otherwise tlie 
 prisoner might inteiTupt the course of justice to the in- 
 jury of the service, it being often inconvenient to replace 
 members who have l^een thrown out under challenges. 
 
 The judge advocate should^ under particular circum- 
 stances, also exercise the right of challenge^ as there 
 may be members of the court as lialjle to objections 
 for favorable dispositions toward the prisoner as the 
 contrary. This right is based on the practice of courts- 
 martial, and not on any provision of law, and should 
 therefore l)e exercised only in extreme cases and with 
 great caution. 
 
 The judge advocate himself is not challengeable^ as 
 challenges are by the article confined to the members of 
 the court-martial. He is not a member, but an assistant 
 to prosecute in the name of the United States, and to 
 record the proceedings of the court. And yet it has 
 been truly remarked* that if the judge advocate has a 
 bias against the prisoner he has power to gratify it; 
 because by being privy to all the consultations of the 
 court from which the prisoner is excluded, he can, if he 
 choose, bear hard upon the latter. He is also the legal 
 adviser of the court, and this is not fair, even giving 
 the judge advocate credit for being an honorable and 
 able man ; if he be a foolish, or a prejudiced, or a dis- 
 honest man, who has a spite at the prisoner, the latter 
 has a most dangerous enemy to deal ^\dth. Under such 
 circumstances, therefore, there can be no good reason 
 
 -•) y'-^^'^^'^^^^t 
 
 g^ 
 
 why a challenge of the judge advocate for cause, should 
 not at least be referred, ^\'ith the grounds assigned, to 
 the authority who convened the court for his orders in 
 
 * Sir C. J. Napier, p. 113. 
 
CHALLENGES AND OATHS. 71 
 
 the case. Nevertlieless, the practice is, that the judge 
 advocate is not lial)le to challenge. 
 
 Cliallenges to particular jurors have been, by la^vyers, 
 reduced to four heads. Causes of challenge for the con. 
 sideration of courts-martial, most frequently fall under 
 the third head — for suspicion of bias, prejudice, or mal- 
 ice, technically termed, lyropter affectum — and may be 
 either a principal challenge, or to the favor. 
 
 A principaS Challenge is such where the cause assigned 
 carries with it prima facie evident marks of suspicion, 
 either of malice or favor : as that a juror is kin to either 
 party within the ninth degree ; that he has an interest in 
 the cause ; that there is an action depending between 
 him and the party; that he has taken money for his 
 verdict ; that he has formerly been a juror in the same 
 cause ; that he is the party's master, servant, counsellor, 
 steward, or attorney, or of the same society or corpora- 
 tion with him ; all these are principal causes of chal- 
 lenge, which, if true, cannot be overruled; for jurors 
 must be omni exceptione majores. 
 
 Chaiienge^i to the Favor are where the party hath no 
 principal challenge, but objects only some probable cir- 
 cumstances of suspicion, as acquaintance and the like.* 
 
 In this connection the following decision from the 
 War Department is quoted, as bearing materially ui)on 
 this subject. 
 
 The accused challenged a member for "bias, prejudice, 
 and malice." The meml)er " then stated that he had no 
 prejudice or bias against the accused which could in 
 the remotest degree interfere with his doing justice in 
 the case ;" but " 1 )eing challenged he requested to l)e 
 
 * 3 Black's Commentary, p. 362. 
 
72 ^riLITARY LAW AXD COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 relieved from sitting^ on the court," wliicli tlie court 
 refused, and overruled tlie challenge. The accused then 
 requested that the member might be " put on his voir 
 dire, in order that he might examine him as to the ex- 
 tent of any prejudice he might entertain ;" which appli- 
 cation the court refused. * * * "It was never doubt- 
 ed that a juror may be examined as to his bias or preju- 
 dice, or his opinions in the matter for trial ; except that 
 it was at one time held that oj^inions formed and ex- 
 pressed, as they may be proved by extrinsic evidence, 
 ought to be so proved. 
 
 But that distinction is not now maintained in the 
 courts of the country ; and an accused is now allowed 
 in all cases, for the better security of an impartial trial, 
 to show the mind of the juror by examining him before 
 the court ; and the only exception is, where the cause of 
 challenge goes to the disgrace or discredit of the juror. 
 
 In regard to the sufficiency of the exj^lanation made 
 by the member, the court ought to have considered that 
 it was not a denial, but in some degree an admission of 
 bias and prejudice, qualified l)y the member's opinion 
 that it could not influence his judgment in the trial. 
 This, however, was the matter of which the court were 
 to judge after inquiring into the nature and grounds of 
 his feelings toward the accused. And as to the proof in 
 this regard the law allows the accused the testimony of 
 the member in the mode he demanded. 
 
 The refusal of the coiu't to allow the accused the ben- 
 efit of the necessary legal evidence to pro^'e his cause of 
 challens^e would have set aside the trial, had the ver- 
 diet been of conviction."* 
 
 * G. 0. No. 21, July 27th, 1853. 
 
CHALLENGES AI^D OATHS. ^3 
 
 Having maliciously declared an opinion unfavorable 
 to the i^risoner, is a good cause of challenge. A jury- 
 man was set aside on a trial for liigli treason, because, 
 when looking at the prisoners, he uttered the words 
 " damned rascals."'" This would hold as sufficient 
 against a member of a court. The rule extends still fur- 
 ther and considers, \\i.q previous expression of an opinion 
 on the case, as one of the most valid causes of challeno;e 
 that can be urged. An officer was tried by a court-mar- 
 tial for killing another; the prisoner challenged one of 
 the members for declaring before the trial came on, that 
 he deserved to die ; this was proved and admitted by the 
 court to be a just and reasonable exception, and the offi- 
 cer was dismissed, and another sworn in his room.f 
 
 It is a good ground of challenge, where a member 
 has been injured hij the accused^ and for which act the 
 latter is brouo-ht to trial. A case is cited in which an 
 
 o 
 
 officer, whose j^roperty had been stolen, was by inadvert- 
 ence placed as a member on the trial. The prisoner was 
 found guilty ; but the sentence was remitted because of 
 this circumstance.^ 
 
 It is a good cause of challenge, when a member will 
 be benefited by the cashiering, dismissal, or loss of rank 
 of the accused, should he be liable to such a sentence in 
 the event of his conviction. 
 
 The officer commanding the regiment, post, company 
 or detachment to which the accused l)elongs, may be 
 challenged with cause, on the supposition, that i)reju- 
 dice may exist fi-om previous imperfect or exparte kno^vl- 
 edge of the circumstances inducing the trial, or that 
 
 * State Trials, O'Coigly. \ Sime's Military Library, voL IV., p. G4. 
 
 X Simmous, p. 197. 
 
74 jflLITARY LAW AXD COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 he had taken an active part in promoting the prose- 
 cution or in bring-inoj forward the charcre. Althouo;h 
 not rendering the sentence invalid, his sitting on the 
 court-martial is an inexpedient proceeding. 
 
 It is a valid cause of challenge that a member is a 
 material witness^ and summoned as such on the trial ; 
 but if required to give evidence as to character only, the 
 objection is not admitted. If a member, not having been 
 challenged, shall have taken the oath and his seat, and 
 shall in the course of the trial be examined as a material 
 witness, he is not thereby disqualified from discharging 
 his duty as a member of the court-martial; circumstan- 
 ces may, however, occur, which may render it a subject 
 of regret that the duties of a member and a witness 
 were united, as the cross-examination is often calculated 
 to irritate.* Besides, there is the further objection that 
 he not only hears the testimony of other witnesses, but 
 is actually to decide between the degree of credit to be 
 given to theii' evidence as compared with his own. In 
 such a case the member should be authorized to ^vith- 
 draw; and this brings up the question, whether chal- 
 lenges can be entertained and admitted after the mem- 
 hers have been sworn f The ancient severe rule was, as 
 expressed by Adye, that " No juror can be challenged, 
 without consent^ after he hath been sworn, whether on 
 the same day or on a former; unless it be for some 
 cause that happened since he was sworn." The more 
 humane and reasonable rule now j^revails in practice, 
 that there is no reason of justice or of common sense 
 that should preclude a prisoner from challenging, on suf- 
 ficient cause, any of the members after the court is 
 
 * Simmons, p. 198. 
 
CHALLENGES AND OATHS. 75 
 
 sworn ; provided lie liad no opportunity of moving his 
 objection before that form was gone tlirougli. An ob- 
 jection cannot be said to be waived, wliicli the objector 
 has no power of urging.* 
 
 Therefore a challenge to a mem1)er for good and suf- 
 ficient cause discovered after he has been sworn, must 
 be admitted as valid by courts-martial, provided the 
 cause was not known to the prisoner prior to his ar- 
 raignment. 
 
 On an appeal from a regimental to a general court- 
 martial, the having been a member of the former, from 
 the decision of which an appeal has been made to the 
 latter, is held to be a sufficient cause of exception. 
 
 It is a valid cause of challenge, if the member has 
 been one of a couit-martial, in which the circumstances 
 about to be investigated have been discussed with 
 direct application to the prisoner about to be tried. The 
 ; discussion must have been of such a nature as to involve 
 his guilt or innocence, and not merely incidental and 
 ■s\athout special reference to the accused. It must be 
 tantamount to the expression, or at least formation, of 
 an opinion having a direct bearing on the present trial. 
 
 It is also a valid ground of challenge, for a member 
 to luLve sat on a court of inquiry held to investigate the 
 subject of the present accusation, whether an opinion 
 upon its merits had been given or not. Militaiy writ- 
 ers, with few exceptions, uphold this rule, although 
 courts of inquiry in the British service do not elicit evi- 
 dence under oath, and opinions that may be formed 
 must rest on data of doul^tful credibility. By our laws, 
 all testimony before such courts is taken under oath, 
 
 * Tytler, p. 231. 
 
76 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MARTIAL. 
 
 and the accused lias tlie privilege of being present, and 
 cross-examining, and of introducing witnesses for his ex- 
 culpation. With such testimony thus before them, it is 
 impossible that members should not have, unconscious- 
 ly, formed opinions, even though the oj^inion of the 
 court, not being required, had not been put upon the 
 record. 
 
 Neither should new members be j)ermitted, and that 
 fact should be regarded as a valid cause of challenge. 
 Though they may have heard the evidence, and the 
 record may be read to them, and be carefully studied, 
 no reason or argument can controvert the fact that it is 
 at best but a loose and doubtful mode of procedure, 
 not altogether compatible with the strict end of justice 
 for which all courts-martial are assembled. In the mili- 
 tary state more than in any other, should every avenue 
 be closed, whence may proceed the slightest misgivings 
 that even in the forms the prisoner may not have re- 
 ceived his meed of justice. A soldier's honor should be 
 secured and guarded by all the ways and means that the 
 severest administration of the laws, either as to form or 
 substance, can provide. 
 
 SMpernunicrarics. When supernumeraries are de- 
 tailed for the court, they are liable to challenge, in the 
 same manner and for the same causes as the regular 
 members.. This is both right and proper, as the supei'- 
 riumerary member exercises more or less influencein the 
 discussion of questions having a l)earing on the trial, 
 and may by the absence of a regular member be called 
 upon to act as such in determining the verdict. 
 
 Should a court be reduced by challenges, heloiu the 
 ■minimum^ an adjournment sine die, or for a limited 
 
challe:n'ges and oaths. 77 
 
 period, follows, and the facts are reported to the author- 
 ity that convened the court, who may dissolve the court 
 and order a new detail for the trial of the prisoner. 
 The members ^vho composed the first, may make part 
 of the second court, but they are liable to challenge 
 with the new members. 
 
 The ])roper time for challenging a member is immedi- 
 ately after the order convening the court has been read, 
 and before the court is sworn. 
 
 OATHS. 
 
 Defined. An oath is an affirmation, declaration, or 
 promise, made by calling on God to witness what is 
 said, with an invoking of his vengeance, or a renuncia- 
 tion of his favor, in case of falsehood.'^ This imj^reca- 
 tion of divine vengeance upon perjury is considered 
 essential by the la^v, and upon it rest the force and 
 sanction of an oath. 
 
 Oath taken. After the challenges, if any, and before 
 proceeding upon the trial, the following oath must be 
 taken by all the members of a court-martial, whether 
 general, regimental, or gan-ison : 
 
 " You, A. B., do swear, that you will well and truly 
 try and determine, according to evidence, the matter 
 now before you, between the United States of America, 
 and the prisoner to be tried, and that you will duly ad- 
 minister justice, according to the provisions of " An Act 
 establishing Rules and Articles for the Government of the 
 Armies of the United States," without partiality, favor, 
 or affection ; and if any doul)t shall arise, not explained 
 by said articles, according to your conscience, the best of 
 
 * Dr. Worcester. 
 
78 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-ilARTIAL. 
 
 your understanding, and tlie custom of war in like cases ; 
 and you do further swear that you will not divulge the 
 sentence of the court until it shall be published by the 
 proper authority ; neither will you disclose or discover 
 the vote or opinion of any particular member of the 
 court-martial, unless required to give evidence thereof, 
 as a witness, by a court of justice, in a due course of law. 
 So help you God."'^ 
 
 The first part of the oath is taken in their caj^acity 
 as jui-ors, and binds them to well and truly trij and de- 
 termine^ according to the evidence. This obligation ex- 
 tends throughout the trial including the verdict ; after 
 trying the case by applying the most rigid rules to the 
 evidence submitted, they determine as to his guilt or in- 
 nocence according to the evidence admitted. The second 
 part refers to their duties as judges, binding them to 
 administer justice^ that is, to j^ass sentence after convic- 
 tion — the sentence being either prescribed or discretion- 
 ary. When prescribed, it must be administered accord- 
 ing to the rules and articles of war — when discretionary, 
 according to their consciences, the best of then- under- 
 standing, and the custom of war in like cases, should 
 any doul)t arise not explained by said articles. The re- 
 mainder of the oath contains an obligation to secrecy as 
 to the sentence of the court, and as to the vote or opin- 
 ion of any particular member of the court-martial. No 
 sentence of a court-martial is complete or final until it 
 has been duly approved, and until so acted upon by the 
 proper authority, it is but an oj^inion which is sul)ject to 
 alteration or revision, and its communication would an- 
 swer no ends of justice, but might in many cases tend to 
 
 * 69th article of war. 
 
CHALLENGES AND OATHS. 79 
 
 frustrate tliem. Witli regard to tlie vote or opinion of 
 any particular member, the obligation to secrecy is like- 
 wise founded on tlie wisest policy. The officers who 
 compose a military tribunal are in a great degree de- 
 pendent for preferment and indidgence on their supe- 
 riors, and this might exercise so great an influence on 
 weak minds and depraved hearts, as to lead them from 
 the direct paths of justice, were this not best obviated 
 by the confidence and security that every member pos- 
 sesses. 
 
 Another reason of a yet stronger nature is, that the 
 individual members may not be exposed to the resent- 
 ment of parties and their connections by the sentences 
 awarded. In the course of their duty, it may be ne- 
 cessary daily to associate with persons against whom 
 unfavorable votes and opinions have been given on a 
 court-martial, so that their publicity would create the 
 most dangerous animosities, ecpiady fatal to the peace 
 and security of individuals, and })rejudicial to the pub- 
 lic service." 
 
 In a general court-martial, the oath is administered 
 by the judge advocate ; and in the inferior courts by 
 the junior memljer, who is also recorder and prosecutor, 
 there being no judge advocate allowed them. 
 
 As soon as the said oath has been administered to 
 the respective members, the ])resident of the court shall 
 administer to the judge advocate an oath, in the follow- 
 ing words : 
 
 " You, A. B., do swear, that you ^vill not disclose of 
 discoxer the vote or opinion of any particular member 
 of the court-martial, unless required to gi^'e evidence 
 
 * Macomb, p. 34. 
 
80 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 tliereof, as a witness, by a court of justice, in due course 
 of law ; nor divulge the sentence of the court to any 
 but the proper authority, until it shall be duly disclosed 
 by the same. So help you God."* 
 
 Although the court may continue to be composed of 
 the same individuals, it must be resworn at the com- 
 mencement of each trial, where several prisoners are to 
 be tried by the same court, whether on the same or on 
 different charg-es. 
 
 o 
 
 '■'■ AW 2yer sons ivlio give evidence before a court-martial 
 are to be examined on oath or aflSrmation."f Hence 
 is derived the power and authority to administer an 
 oath to every witness ; but this does not apply to persons 
 examined, before the court itself is sworn. By the 
 practice of courts-martial, witnesses are sworn T)y the 
 judge advocate, before the minor courts by the recorder, 
 although the law is silent as to w^ho shall administer the 
 oath — which is as follows : 
 
 " You swear, or affirm (as the case may l)e), the 
 evidence you shall give in the cause now in hearing 
 shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
 truth. So help you God." J 
 
 Should a witness — being an officer or soldier — 
 refuse to be sworn, he may be ordered into arrest or 
 confinement, to answer charges that may be j^referred 
 against him for contempt of court, as a breach of good 
 order and military discipline. 
 
 The form of administering; the oath has nothing to 
 do with the oath itself, and yet it should be the object 
 of courts-martial to ado2:)t that ceremony, in every par- 
 ticular case, which most forcibly imposes the obligation 
 
 * G9th article of war. f *?nd article of war. \ Ibid. 
 
CHALLENGES AND OATHS. 81 
 
 of speaking the truth. This can be Lest effected by 
 swearing witnesses according to the i)articular mode 
 which they may deem most binding on their consciences. 
 
 After he is sworn, the witness may be asked if he con- 
 siders the oath he has taken binding on his conscience. 
 If he answers affirmatively, his answer is conclusive. 
 The most correct and j)roper time to ask for the infor- 
 mation is prior to his taking the oath. 
 
 A witness is sivorn hut once during the same trial, even 
 when called to testify more than once, by either, or both 
 parties ; — or by the court for explanation. 
 6 
 
CHAPTEE IX. 
 
 FOEMATION, ADJOUENMENT, AND DISSOLU- 
 TION OF THE COURT. 
 
 When a court-martial is once constituted i>y compe- 
 tent autiiority, it continues in existence until dissolved 
 by tlie same or superior authority. After having 
 arraigned the prisoner ordered to be tried, it cannot, how- 
 ever, be dissolved without proceeding to judgment, unless 
 it be reduced below the legal number by the death or pro- 
 tracted illness of members. Its dissolution may also be 
 justified by the j^rotracted illness of the prisoner, in 
 which case the prisoner would be exposed to a future 
 trial. Should his death put a stop lo the trial, the fact 
 must be established by evidence, and recorded, prior to 
 the final adjournment of the court. 
 
 The court must be adjourned^ at any 2:>eriod of its 
 proceedings ])rior to the final close of the prosecution 
 and defence, on satisfactory proof of an army surgeon if 
 one is to be had, or of a piivate physician, that the pris- 
 oner is in such a state that his health -svould l)e seri- 
 ously endangered by his attendance in court. 
 
 Should illness or other cause prevent a member from 
 att<^nding either before or after the arraignment, tlie 
 court may adjourn from day to day for a reasonable time, 
 to await his attendance ; and should the seats of several 
 members be permanently vacated, and the number pres- 
 
FORMATION, ADJOUEN.AIENT AND DISSOLUTION. 83 
 
 ent not fiill below the miuimum of five, or the number 
 otherwise prescribed by the order; the court will proceed 
 with the trial. AVhen the legal complement are not 
 present, those in session may adjourn from day to day, 
 but as they cannot constitute a court, neither can tliey 
 exercise judicial functions in the performance of judicial 
 acts. If a court be reduced l^elow the legal minimum, 
 it may adjourn for a certain period or sine die^ accord- 
 ing to circumstances, and report the facts to the con- 
 vening authority, who is competent to declare tlie court 
 dissolved. 
 
 Hours of Sci^sioii. No proceedings of trials shall be 
 carried on, excepting l)etween the hours of eight in the 
 morning and three in the afternoon, excepting in cases 
 which, in the opinion of the officer appointing the court- 
 martial, require immediate example.* 
 
 The time and place of assemhling of a court-martial, 
 can only be changed by the authority convening the 
 same, and whenever it becomes necessary or expedient 
 to change the place of meeting, authority must be 
 granted by the appointing power, on proj)er representa- 
 tions made to him l)y the court. 
 
 Tiie i>re<<iciin;; ofticor of a coui't-martial — besides the 
 duties and j)rivileges of member — is only its organ. He 
 speaks and acts for it in each case, when the partic- 
 ular rule has been prescril)ed by law, regulation, or its 
 own resolution. He announces the adjournment, -when 
 the prescribed hour has arrived. He cannot adopt an 
 hour different from that which has been ])rescribed, 
 ^vdtliout the approl^ation of a majority of the court 
 when in session. This riulit of regulating its own ses- 
 
 * Totli article of war. 
 
84 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 sions is important and necessary, and the limitation 
 placed on it by tlie TStli article of war, was obviously 
 intended to secure full and fair deliberation. In this 
 and all deliberations of the court, the equality of the 
 several members was intended to be preserved.* 
 
 A court adjourns from day to day, and may adjourn 
 for a longer period if demanded l)y the necessities of 
 the case. When the court adjourns for three days, the 
 judge advocate shall report the fact to the commander 
 of the post or troops, and the members belonging to the 
 command w411 be liable to duty during the time. When 
 a court adjourns without day, the members will return 
 to their respective posts and duties, unless otherwise or- 
 dered. 
 
 Courts-martial deliberate in secret, and at the request 
 of a member, of the judge advocate, or of his own mo- 
 tion, the presiding officer may direct the court to be 
 cleared for deliberation, or for any incidental discussion. 
 When cleared, no one is present besides the members 
 and the judge advocate. At other times the court is 
 open to the public. 
 
 Votes. All questions of adjournment, ttc, are de- 
 cided by a majority of votes, and in case of a tie-vote, 
 the question is decided either affirmatively or negative- 
 ly, according as it has been put. 
 
 Absence. Should a member of a court-martial, for 
 any cause, al)sent himself from his seat pending the trial, 
 the question arises, can lie resume it ? It is essentially 
 necessary that the testimony of witnesses should be 
 evolved in jyresence of all the members, as no act can be 
 legal that is performed l)y a mere j^art of the court. 
 
 * G. 0., No. 14, War Department, April 20th, 1S50. 
 
FOEMATIOX, ADJOURNMENT, AND DISSOLUTION. 85 
 
 Captain Simmons cites a case,* in wliicli a member was 
 permitted to resume his seat after being absent one day. 
 The reviewing officer said : " This proceeding is so direct- 
 ly at variance with the practice of coiii-ts-martial and 
 the principles of justice, that it may be held to affect 
 the legality of the judgment of the court," and con- 
 cludes his remarks by stating that "the irregularity, be- 
 fore observed, has rendered nugatory the sentence of the 
 court-martial." The occasional withdrawal of a mem- 
 ber for a time, however limited, must suspend the exam- 
 ination of a witness ; whatever is in itself unjust and 
 irregular should not be tolerated even in the slightest 
 degree. It is for this reason that supernumeraries are 
 required to be present throughout the sessions of the 
 court, that they may be properly qualified to fill a va- 
 cated seat at any moment during the trial. 
 
 There is no doubt that in justice the absent member 
 should not resume his seat. But who is to decide the 
 matter, and has the court the power to exclude the 
 member \ The opinion of Mr. Attorney-General Gush- 
 ing, in a case that occurred in the navy, throws light 
 upon the subject. He says. It is true that, not having 
 heard a portion of the witnesses testify, so as to judge 
 of their credibility from their appearance and manner 
 of testifying, he was without some of the means of 
 proper judgment. Suppose he had been absent during 
 a protracted and complicated trial, and came in on the 
 last day to hear the arguments, not having heard the 
 testimony at all, could he properly have a voice in the 
 finding ? This could hardly be. But the length of ab- 
 sence determines nothino;. 
 
 * Page 208. 
 
80 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MARTIAL. 
 
 However tliis may be, wlietlier tlie absent member 
 sLall act or not U2:)on liis return, must depend on his 
 own views of jiropriety, and not upon those of the 
 court, which is nowhere clothed with j^ower to expel a 
 fellow member. When the court is organized, the ques- 
 tions before them relate to the accused, and not to the 
 qualifications of their brother members, of which they 
 have no jurisdiction. I think they had no authority to 
 exclude him from a seat in the court. 
 
 This view of the powers of a court-martial is contrary 
 to the universal practice in such cases. True, the arti- 
 cles of war only authorize courts to determine the rele- 
 vancy and validity of diallenges, and to decide thereon, 
 but this takes place during its organization, and before 
 they, by their oath, assume their judicial jDowers, and 
 by no article of war is the power conferred on the court 
 to punish its own members. It is unusual, in the prac- 
 tice of all courts of justice, for judges who have not 
 heard the whole trial, to participate in giving judg- 
 ment ; but there is no law to prohiljit them from doing 
 so, or to compel them if they refuse. Courts-martial 
 then decide on such cases by authorit}^ of custom of ser- 
 vice, and not by powers granted by statute, and as such 
 custom is not prohibited by law, and has received the 
 sanction of time, practice and military writers, and as its 
 continuance contributes largely to the exhibition of fiiir- 
 ness in the administration of justice, the present prac- 
 tice should remain undisturbed.* 
 
 The absence of the j^idge advocate^ at any time during 
 the ])rogress of the trial, does not invalidate the pro- 
 ceedings, and he may resume his duties at any moment. 
 
 * Opinions, April Uth, 1855. 
 
 I 
 
ADJOURNMENT, AND DISSOLUTION. 8*7 
 
 Application for delay or poKlponeinent of trial must, 
 
 when practicable, be made to the authority convening 
 the court. When made to the court, it nuist be before 
 plea, and will then, if in the opinion of the court well 
 founded, be referred to the authority convening the 
 court, to decide whether the court should be adjourned 
 or dissolved, and the charges reserved for another 
 court.* 
 
 Upon apjilication l)y the accused for postponement 
 on the ground of the absence of a witness, it ought dis- 
 tinctly to appear on his oath, 1st, that the witness is 
 material, and how ; 2d, that the accused has used due 
 diligence to procure his attendance ; and 3d, that he has 
 reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he 
 A\dll be al)le to procure such attendance within a reason- 
 able time stated.f When such an aj^plication is made 
 on the part of the prosecution, courts-martial are less 
 ready to grant it than when requested by the accused, 
 because, as the government can fix its own time for 
 holding the trial, there is no excuse for want of prepara- 
 tion in any 2)articular. The postponement or suspension 
 of proceedings in either case, cannot be demanded as a 
 right, and the court may in its discretion grant or refuse 
 the apijlication. 
 
 * Revised G. R., p. 124 f Ibid., p. 125. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 OF THE TRIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. 
 
 Ix tliose numerous incidents of their constitution and 
 mode of action, concerning whicli the statute rules are 
 silent, courts-martial are to be governed by the general 
 principles of military law, recuiTing to adjudged cases, 
 precedents ruled, authoritative legal opinions, and ap- 
 proved books of legal exposition.^ 
 
 Detail. The trial of an officer or soldier against 
 whom charges have been preferred, having been consid- 
 ered necessary, a warrant issues from the proper author- 
 ity for the assembling of a coui-t-martial. The warrant 
 details the members and judge advocate ^^ho are to 
 compose it, as well as the time and place of meeting. 
 In the detail the members will be named, and they will 
 take place in the court, in the order of their rank. A 
 decision of the proper authority in regard to the rank 
 of the members cannot be reversed by the court. 
 
 The court having assembled., the names of the mem- 
 bers are called over by the judge advocate, and they 
 take their seats according to rank. 
 
 The court is then proclaimed open, and the parties in 
 the cause are introduced. 
 
 In those cases where the court may desire to forhid 
 the puUication of the proceedings, the president gives 
 
 * Attorney-general's opinions, January 31st, 1857. 
 
THE TRIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. 89 
 
 notice to that effect ; and a military man might he tried 
 for disobedience of orders, shoidd he publish any por- 
 tion of the same after such prohilntion. 
 
 Order Read, &c. The order convening the coui-t is 
 noAV read by the judge advocate, and if the latter be 
 appointed l)y a special warrant, or if subsequent orders 
 have changed the original detail, they will likewise be 
 read, in an audible voice, within hearing of the prisoner. 
 The judge advocate then asks the prisoner whether he 
 objects to be tried by any of the members present 
 named in the order, and if so to present his cause of 
 challenge. Peremptory challenges not being permitted, 
 the accused must state his reasons in writing, or they 
 may be recorded, as stated, by the judge advocate. 
 Where tAvo or more members are challenged, they must 
 1)6 objected to in the order of their rank, commencing 
 with the s(niior, one member l)eing challenged at a time, 
 and each individual case settled by the court before en- 
 tering upon another. In all cases where the vote is 
 equally divided, the decision is given in favor of the 
 party challenging. 
 
 Charges. When all the objections have been acted 
 upon, and there remains a legal numljer of members 
 comj^etent to proceed with the trial, the charges and 
 specifications preferred against the prisoner are read for 
 the information of the court. This, though not the 
 practice of courts-martial, is deemed essential, as it for- 
 mallv brino-s l)efore the court the matter, touchins; 
 which they are al)out to swear that they \\'ill well and 
 truly try and determine. 
 
 The officer wlio a])poInts the court finds the "true 
 bill" of indictment, but the judge advocate, as prosecu- 
 
90 :\riLTTAEY LAAV AND COURTS-ZMARTIAL. 
 
 tor for tlie United States, has official right to make the 
 charges technically correct. When, however, in the judge 
 advocate's opinion the facts specified constitute one 
 offence, and in the opinion of the convening authority 
 they constitute another, it becomes a question as to 
 whose opinion shall govern. 
 
 " In recent orders from the head-quarters of a depart- 
 ment, the arraignment and consequent trial of certain 
 named soldiers, before a general court -martial, ordered 
 ' for the trial of such persons as may be properly bi'ought 
 before it,' is pronounced illegal^ as ' not having been au- 
 thorized by the department commander' — the charges 
 not having been forwarded from department head- 
 quarters, but preferred on the spot. 
 
 " It is not deemed safe, or consistent with the interests 
 of military discij^line, to allow this ruling to pass, uncjues- 
 tioned, into a precedent. 
 
 " The orders were in the usual form, nor limited l)y 
 any accompanying instructions. Under such orders, it 
 has been the long-standing and general practice of the 
 service, for a court-martial, in its discretion, to try offend- 
 ers against whom charges are presented, through the 
 judge advocate, by the highest authority on the spot. 
 The custom seems as reasonable as convenient, and can 
 only be cpiestioned l>y a negative inference from the 
 silence of the law. It invades no rights, but protects 
 the right of speedy trial. It saves expense, empties the 
 guard-house and makes punishment effective by jirompt- 
 ness. 
 
 " Should the authority instituting a court-martial dis- 
 regard these considerations, and limit the court to the 
 trial of certain named cases or of a certain class of cases. 
 
THE TRIAL AND ITS USTCIDENTS. 91 
 
 a specific form of order slionld tlieii be used to express 
 its intentions.""''' 
 
 Additional cimrses. The convening autliority is not 
 only competent to alter and amend the original charges, 
 at any time, antecedent to the arraignment, but also to 
 prefer additional charges and specifications against the 
 prisoner. The latter has the right to due notice of the 
 additional charges, as well as to any material alterations 
 in the original ones, before being called to plead. Sub- 
 sequent to the aiTaignment, no additional charges can 
 be entertained, either referring to the points in issue or 
 to a distinct ofl:ence. This is based u2:)on the practice 
 of courts-martial, and on the very words of the oath 
 taken by each meml)er : " You will well and truly try 
 and determine, according to evidence, the matter noio 
 before you." For any offence committed either prior or 
 subsequent to his arraignment, unconnected with the 
 subject matter in issue, the ])risoner is certainly amena- 
 ble; but the offence must form the subject of a se])arate 
 charge and specification, and the trial be distinct — tried 
 by the same, or by another court-martial. The follow- 
 ing bears directly upon this suT)ject. 
 
 " The action of the court in declining to try the addi- 
 tional charges against (the prisoner), on the gi'ound that 
 he li;i<l already been tried by the court, and that all the 
 means of 2)unishment at its disposal had been exhausted 
 in the sentence passed at that trial, is not approved. 
 The accused was amenable to trial — subject to the legal 
 limitation — while he remained in the service, and he 
 was entitled to it as speedily as possible. The court 
 could not know, in anticipation of the orders of the 
 
 * G. 0. Xo. 7, Uead-Quartcr.s of the army, May 20th, 1857. 
 
92 MILITAKY LAW A^'D C0URTS-:MAETIAL. 
 
 reviewing authority, that the first trial would not result 
 in the prisoner's continuance in service ; neither could 
 it assume that the trial of the additional charges would 
 not result in an acquittal.""' 
 
 Court SAvorn. The accused being in attendance, the 
 judge advocate proceeds to administer the oath as pre- 
 scribed by the 69th article of war; after which the pres- 
 ident swears the judge advocate. 
 
 Tlie record must show that the court was organized 
 as the law requires ; that the court and judge advocate 
 xcere duly sicorn in the presence of the prisoner ; that he 
 was previously asked whether he had any objection to 
 any member, and his answer thereto. A coj^y of the 
 order appointing the court, will be entered on the record 
 in each case. 
 
 It was declared in the case of Peter Clark, a seaman 
 in the navy, that the proceedings were " irregular and 
 void," l)ecause it did not appear on the recoi'd that the 
 judge advocate had l)een sworn agreealdy to the law. 
 " The maxim well applies, that that which does not ap- 
 pear should l)e considered as not existing ; and when it 
 is considered that he is to keep the record of the evi- 
 dence o:iven, and the proceedings of the court ; and that 
 upon this evidence and ^proceedings as recorded l\y him, 
 the fate of the accused is ultimately to be decided, every 
 reflecting mind would concur in saying that the fidelity 
 of this oflicer should be secured by the usual sanc- 
 tions."t 
 
 It was also decided in the case of INIidshipman Guthrie, 
 that the justice and propriety of administering the oath 
 
 * 0. Xo. 20, Head-Quartors Department of Texas, June 5th, 1855. 
 f Attorney-general's opinions, Dec. 24th, 1838. 
 
THE TRIAL AND IT8 IISXIDENTS. 93 
 
 to the jiulge advocate, are not less apparent tliau its 
 necessity in point of law.* 
 
 And again ; by the 69tli article, it is required tliat 
 the members of the court sliall take an oath " well and 
 truly to try and determine, according to evidence, the 
 matter now before you, l^etween the United States of 
 America, and the lyrisonev to he trieciy On this point 
 the record is silent ; it does not show that the members 
 composing the court, acted under tlie oUlyatlona of an 
 oath, as the law requires shall be the case. It is not 
 presuinalde that so essential a circumstance was over- 
 looked by the court ; Ijut be this as it may, it is a mat- 
 ter not open to explanation and proof The law reipiir- 
 ing that the court shall act upon oath, that it was so 
 done must be rendered manifest l)y the record itself, and 
 can be made apparent in no other way. In this view, 
 then, the ])roceedings are defective; so much so, that a 
 judgment cannot be pronounced upon theni.f 
 
 In regimental and garrison courts-martial, there being- 
 no judge advocate a})pointed, the junior member, who 
 is also recorder, administers to the members, himself 
 included, the same oath that is prescribed for the 
 meml)ers of a general court-martial ; and as this oath 
 enforces secrecy, the recorder does not take the par- 
 ticuhir oath prescribed for the judge advocate. 
 
 Whenever the same court-martial tries more lyrisoners 
 than one^ and they are arraigned on separate and dis- 
 tinct charges, the court is to be sworn at the commence- 
 ment of each trial, and the proceedings in each case will 
 be made up separately. 
 
 * Opinions, June 9th, IS-IO. 
 
 f War Department, Sept. 29th, 1829. 
 
94: MILITARY LAW AND COUKTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 If the prisoner or judge advocate desire a ijostpone- 
 ment of the trial, the application must now be made. 
 It is essential that courts-martial should have a thor- 
 ough knowledge of the matter to Le investigated, and 
 have assumed the judicial character by being sworn, be- 
 fore deciding on the necessity of delaying proceedings. 
 Circumstances may arise during the progress of the trial, 
 when a temporary adjournment, even to the extent of 
 several days, might materially further the proper devel- 
 opment of the case, still, if practicable, all applications 
 shoul ^ be made prior to the arraignment. 
 
 Counsel. At this stage of the proceedings, though it 
 may be permitted at any time, the accused makes his 
 request for the privilege of introducing his counsel. 
 
 Arracgjiiiieiit. Tli / charges and specifications are now 
 read to the prisoner, in ojoen court, by the judge advo- 
 cate, who arraigns him in the following terms : " Cap- 
 tain A. B., — regiment of , you have heard the 
 
 charges and specifications preferred against you ; how 
 say you — guilty or not guilty T The pleas are made to 
 the specifications to each charge in their order, and then 
 to each charge. 
 
 Pleas. The ordinary plea is, not guilty, l)ut the ac- 
 cused may plead in bar of trial, or plead guilty, or stand 
 mute. 
 
 standing Mute. When a prisoner, arraigned before a 
 general court-martial, shall, from obstinacy and deliber- 
 ate design, stand mute, or answer foreign to the pui*pose, 
 the court may proceed to trial and judgment, as if the 
 prisoner had regularly pleaded not guilt}\* 
 
 In all cases Avhere the prisoner does stand mute, it is 
 
 * TOth article of war. 
 
THE TRIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. 95 
 
 tlie duty of tlie eoiii-t to determine, before proceeding to 
 trial, wlietlier this is not the result of obstinacy or delib- 
 erate design. The court may find that the prisoner is 
 insane, in which case no farther proceedings can be had, 
 and the court must assign the insanity as a reason for 
 not continuing the trial. And if, at any time during 
 the trial, it appears that the prisoner is insane, all fur- 
 ther proceedings must cease for the same reason. If the 
 prisoner is found mute by the visitation of God^ the 
 court will proceed with the trial only when the prisoner 
 is of competent intelligence, and can be made to under- 
 stand the proceedings and evidence, and can also com- 
 municate, by means of writing or conventional signs. 
 Still it is a point yet undetermined, whether judgment 
 of death can be given against one who hath never plead- 
 ed, and who can say nothing in arrest of judgment.'^* 
 
 Pleading Ouiity. If the j)risoner pleads " guilty" in 
 open court, no evidence can be taken on the part of the 
 prosecution, l)ecause no issue is made. Every thing al- 
 leged is admitted, and evidence is only needed for de- 
 ciding a matter in dispute. Such a plea, however, nei- 
 ther precludes on the part of the accused the production 
 of evidence as to fact and character, nor is it a bar to his 
 making a written defence in extenuation of his offence, 
 or in mitigation of })unisliment. The oliject of his plea 
 may be to confine the notice of the court to the alleged 
 crime as it stands on the face of the charge, and he has 
 a right to any l)enefit flowing therefrom. Having plead- 
 ed guilty, the accusation may be considered as virtually 
 proved and the prosecution closed, as by the constitu- 
 tion, a confession in open court — for treason, the most 
 
 * -4 Blackstone, p. 524. 
 
96 MILITAEY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 flagrant political crime — is held to be equivalent to tlie 
 testimony of two witnesses. The practice of our courts 
 now is, to warn the accused of the consequences of such 
 a plea, and to admit all evidence on his part in mitiga- 
 tion or explanation of his conduct, whether as to fact or 
 character. The right of cross-examination, of course, 
 exists on the pai't of the j^rosecution. 
 
 Where the prisoner pleads guilty to the specifications, 
 but not guilty to the charge, no evidence is admitted to 
 prove the allegations contained in the specification, be- 
 cause they are not denied. The prosecution may, by 
 argument, attempt to show that the allegations admitted 
 by the ])risoner do prove the crime charged.* As in 
 the case of pleading guilty to the whole accusation, the 
 accused may introduce evidence to excuse or palliate his 
 conduct. The accused may also plead guilty to certain 
 portions of a sj^ecification, and not guilty to the remain- 
 der of it. 
 
 Pleas iu Bar of Trial. These may be, either to the 
 jurisdiction of the court, or what are termed special 
 pleas. 
 
 To tiic Jurisdiction. A prisoner pleading to the juris- 
 diction of the court, may allege that he is no soldier, or 
 not amenalde to a court-martial; or that he, being a 
 soldier, is arraigned before a court-martial for a civil 
 crime; or brought for trial before an inferior com-t, for 
 a crime made cognizable by a general court-martial under 
 the articles of war; or arraigned before a court not legally 
 constituted either as to the authority which convened 
 it, or as to the number of its members; and for these 
 causes may take exception to the jurisdiction of the 
 
 * O'Brien, p. 251. 
 
THE TEIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. 97 
 
 court-martial. Wlien tLese or like causes exist to make 
 the jurisdiction doubtful, the accused sliould plead ac- 
 cordingly. 
 
 Special Pleas. A special plea in bar of trial, presents 
 to tlie court a reason why the accused should not be 
 called on to answer to the charge, nor be tried for the 
 oftence alleged. 
 
 1st. A former acquittal, or a former conviction before 
 any court-martial of competent jurisdiction. These are 
 made valid pleas in bar, and are authorized by the last 
 clause of the SYth article of war, which enacts that no 
 officer, tfec, "shall be tried a second time for the same 
 offence," and by article V., Amendments to the Consti- 
 tution, wdiich provides that no person shall be " subject 
 for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life 
 or liml)." 
 
 The plea of autrefois acquit, or a former acquittal, is 
 grounded on this universal maxim of the common law 
 of England — that no man is to be brought into jeopardy 
 of his life more than once for the same offence. The 
 plea oi autrefois convict, or a former conviction, /t*;' tlie 
 same identical crime, though no judgment was ever 
 given or perhaps will be (being sus^^ended by the ben- 
 efit of clergy or other causes), is a good plea in bar to an 
 indictment. Yet in many instances, where, contrary to evi- 
 dence, tlie jury have found the ])risoner guilty, their ver- 
 dict hath been mercifully set aside, and a new trial grant- 
 ed, <fec. But there hath been, yet, no instance of granting 
 a new trial, ichere the prisoner was acquitted on the first* 
 From this it follows, that former acquittals and con- 
 victions are valid pleas in bar of trial, and that a second 
 
 * Blackstoue, 4, p. 33G. 
 
98 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 trial on charges upon wliicli lie has been previously con- 
 victed, can only be ordered and held for the benefit of 
 the prisoner and upon his own motion. The law was 
 devised purely for his benefit, and can never by any 
 possibility operate against him. It must also be consid- 
 ered that the plea is his privilege, to be exercised or not 
 at his own pleasure, and if the accused makes no use of 
 it, the court cannot take cognizance of it in order to bar 
 the trial. The plea of the prisoner alone can put the 
 previous trial in issue, otherwise the action of the court 
 cannot be judicially directed to it. 
 
 The question arises, wliat constitutes a former acquit- 
 tal or former conviction f Formerly it was considered 
 to be nothing more or less, than the trial and conviction 
 or acquittal of an officer, non-commissioned officer, sol- 
 dier, or follower of the army, by a legally constituted 
 court-martial of competent jurisdiction, with the " con- 
 firmation" of the reviewing authority."^ 
 
 Recent decisions seem to have somewhat modified, on 
 principle, the old laws of the books, or text writers on 
 autrefois convict and autrefois acquit. At one time 
 verdict upon good indictment was required. At the 
 present day verdict is not necessary. It is sufficient, if 
 the accused lias heen put on trial on a valid indictment j 
 if he has pleaded and been given in charge to the jury ; 
 and if .there he no vcdid^ legcd objection to proceeding to 
 judgment. If mere "disapproval" by the reviewing 
 authority could annihilate the trial, or, after the prosecu- 
 tion had begun, new trials could be ordered indefinitely, 
 the fate of the accused would remain un2:)rotected in the 
 hands of an unscrupulous superior, who, l)y packing a 
 
 * * Opinions, Sept. l-ith, 1818, and G. 0. Xo. 2, War Dept., Jan. IStli, 1844. 
 
THE TRIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. 99 
 
 court to do liis Lidding, niiglit bring to undeserved pun- 
 islinieiit tlie most innocent of his inferiors. 
 
 In Captain Van Bokkelin's case, tlie court found liiiu 
 guilty of the 1st and 2d charges^ and sentenced liini to 
 be cashiered ; these charges being sustained by the i)lea 
 of the accused, and by the evidence of the prosecution. 
 But it appearing that the court had rejected legal evi- 
 dence offered by the defence, in refusing to allow the 
 witness to be sworn upon evidence which did not go to 
 his competency at all, and which, even as going to his 
 credi1)ility, was not in legal form, the secretary of war 
 decided that the accused was entitled to a new trial for 
 the benefit of the evidence ruled out, should he claim 
 it. " He will therefore be allowed to say whether he 
 abides the verdict and sentence on the 1st and 2d 
 charges, or claims a new trial on them." The accused 
 demanded a neAV trial on them, which was granted, and 
 the court found him guilty of both charges, and sentenced 
 him to be cashiered; which sentence was confirmed by 
 the President of the United States.* 
 
 A new trial cannot, then, be ordered, unless for the 
 benefit of the accused and upon his oion motion ; and, as 
 a general rule, the mere arraignment and pleading upon 
 the same charges before a court-martial, is a valid plea 
 in bar of another trial for the same offence. 
 
 A distinction must here be made, however, between 
 the illegal act of a legal court, and the act of an illegal 
 court. In the former case, the accused cannot be again 
 put upon his trial for the same offence ; in the latter he 
 can, l:»ecause the act of an illegal court is void, being 
 the act of no court at all. 
 
 * G. 0. No. 18, War Department, May 8th, 1861. 
 
100 MILITARY LAW ATs^D COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 A mere arrest of an officer and liis discliarge without 
 trial, is not a valid plea in bar. In tlie case of Lieuten- 
 ant Gassaway, wlio was tried in July, 1819, lie jitleaded 
 in bar, a former arrest on tbe same charges and a dis- 
 charge witlwut trial. His plea was not well founded, as 
 appears by the opinion of Mr. Attorney-General Wirt, 
 who states that the fifth amendment to the constitution 
 provides that no person shall be subject for the same 
 offence, to be twice put in jeopardy for life or limb. 
 But a mere arrest, even in cases punishable in life or 
 limb, is not considered as constituting this jeopardy. 
 The principle is derived to us immediately from the 
 common law. It is a maxim of this law, that a man 
 shall not be brought into danger of his life more than 
 once for the same offence ; but to give the benefit of this 
 maxim, it is necessary that he should have been actually 
 acquitted ov convicted on a former tricd^ and the record of 
 this fact must be produced.'^ 
 
 \ A former acquittal or conviction of an act, hy a civil 
 courts is not a good plea in bar before a court-martial 
 on charges and specifications covering the same act. 
 The whole ground is covered by the incidents of the 
 trial of Captain Howe. He was charged with " conduct 
 l^rejudicial to good order and military discij^line," in 
 cruelly beating, kicking, and maltreating a private 
 soldier belonging to his command, on the 6th December, 
 1839, and with this aggravation, "all of which cruelty 
 did cause the death of said private, James Jones, of 
 troop G, 2d dragoons." 
 
 The court-martial convened in April, 1840. The 
 second special plea in bar of trial, presented by the 
 
 * Opinions, vol. I., p. 294. 
 
THE TRIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. 101 
 
 accused, was to the effect tliat the charges against him 
 were not proper to be tried by a court-martial, ])ut only 
 by a civil court, and that the offence, if committed at all, 
 was committed within the county of St. John's, E. R, 
 and that the superior court of the eastern district of 
 Florida had jurisdiction in said offence. The court sus- 
 tained this second plea, and decided that they could not 
 take cognizance of the offence for the trial of which the 
 coiu't was convened. The commanding general disap- 
 proved this decision, inasmuch as the unmilitary conduct 
 charged ought to have been tried by the court-martial, 
 leaving the homicide to be tried by the civil tribunal. 
 Out of respect to the civil authority, the commanding 
 general deemed it proper to suspend all ^proceedings in 
 the case, until the decision of the civil court should be 
 made known. Captain H. would, notwithstanding, ]>" 
 sul)ject to trial before a court-martial for any breac^i 
 the military law.* 
 
 On the 20th October, 1841, Captain II. was tried b. 
 fore the court of Florida, upon the indictment for man- 
 slaughter which had been found against him, and was, 
 by the verdict of the petit jury and the judgment of the 
 court, thereof acquitted. 
 
 The court-martial having been suspended in its pro- 
 ceedings, and the impediment to the further militaiy 
 prosecution — the officer being in custody of the civil 
 authorities at the time — having Ijeen removed, the court 
 was ordered to reassemble, and met on May 10th, 1842. 
 The accused now pleaded in 1>ar, his arraignment, trial 
 and acquittal, on the before-mentioned indictment for 
 manslaughter, showing an authenticated transcript of 
 
 * G. 0. Xo. 25. Ilead-Quarters of the army, May 22d, 1840. 
 
102 [MILITARY LAW AXD COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 tlie record of tlie trial and acquittal, iu the court of 
 Florida. The coui-t-martial would not admit the valid- 
 ity of such plea^ and proceeded to trial. The accused 
 was found guilty, and sentenced to be suspended from 
 rank, pay and emoluments for twelve calendar months. 
 The proceedings, finding and sentence were duly ap- 
 proved and carried into execution. 
 
 In his comments, the attorney-general says : " As- 
 sault and battery, and homicide, are violations of the 
 municipal laws of the place where committed, to be 
 tried and punished by the proper tribunal of the state 
 or territory whose peace is broken and laws offend- 
 ed." But the same acts being done by an officer or sol- 
 dier of the army of the United States, over and above 
 the breach of the local law, is a breach also of the law 
 of the United States, a violation of the rules and arti- 
 cles for the government of the armies of the United 
 States. In such a case, the offender is punishable both 
 as a citizen, sul)ject to the municipal law of the place, 
 and also as a soldier, or officer, subject to the military 
 laAv of the United States. 
 
 Such double accountahility to two different jurisdic- 
 tions and to different and double jniuishments, for the 
 same act, making two different offences, is settled to be 
 lawful by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, in the case of Moore vs. the state of Illi- 
 nois. That is to say, the rule of the military law which 
 decides that an officer or soldier, though tried, on the act 
 of killing his superior officer, for murder by the civil 
 magistrate, is not the less t]-ial)le afterward for mutiny 
 by tlie military law, is in complete accordance with es- 
 tal)lished rules of common civil jurisprudence. This 
 
THE TKIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. 103 
 
 case disposes of tlie question of autrefois acquit, or of 
 autrefois convict at common law, or of clouljle jeopardy 
 of life and limb, for tlie same offence, in the amendments 
 of tlie constitution; for tlie courts say unequivocally, 
 tliat wlien an act oifeiids against two jurisdictions, and 
 lias distinct criminal relations Ly each, " either or botli" 
 of tlie jurisdictions may punisli the act, it being the 
 case of punishment of two offences, not of two punish- 
 ments for one offence.'"' 
 
 Analogous to the 2)lea of autrefois convict, is the fact 
 of having himw 2yrevioudy punislied for the same offence. 
 Such a plea in our service must be considered, at best, 
 of doubtful validity, as no superior in the army is em- 
 powered to punish an inferior without due process of 
 law ; and the assumption and exercise of such authority 
 over an inferior could do no more than influence the 
 court toward the infliction of a lenient sentence, in the 
 event of conviction. Were a commanding officer em- 
 powered by law to inflict certain kind and degree of 
 punishment for certain specified offences, the exercise of 
 this power would constitute a valid jilea, unless fresh 
 circumstances, previously unknown, rendered the punish- 
 ment inflicted not at all commensurate with the increas- 
 ed gravity of the offence. 
 
 2d. A pardon may be pleaded in bar of trial ; if full, 
 it at once destroys the end and purpose of the charge, 
 by remitting that punishment which the prosecution is 
 calculated to inflict.f 
 
 After the termination of the Mexican war, the Presi- 
 dent directed it to be announced " that deserters from 
 the army, at large, may peaceably return to their homes 
 
 * Gushing, April 7th, 1854. f Blacksloue, 337. 
 
104 MILITAIIY LAW AND COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 witliout being subject to punisliment or trial on account 
 of sucli desertion.* 
 
 A case is cited by Simmons,f in wliicli tlie court were 
 of opinion that tlie forgiveness of tlie prisoner, by liis 
 commanding officer, of this same crime of desertion now 
 preferred against liim, and tlie prisoner having been or- 
 dered to duty subsequent to sucli forgiveness, did 
 amount to a pardon ; wbicli o23inion was confirmed by 
 the field-marshal. 
 
 3d. The prisoner may plead in bar, the statute of lim- 
 itation, prescribed by the 88th article of war in these 
 words : " No person shall be liable to be tried and pun- 
 ished by a general court-martial for any oftence which 
 shall appear to have been committed more than two 
 years before the issuing of the order for such trial, un- 
 less the person, by reason of having absented himself, 
 or some other manifest impediment, shall not have been 
 amenable to justice within that period." When this 
 plea is preferred by the accused, it is decisive, unless 
 the prosecution can show that the prisoner was not amen- 
 able to justice within the time limited,' by reason of 
 absence or other manifest impediment. 
 
 In the case of Captain Howe, a plea of this kind was 
 made, which was overruled by the court. The facts 
 were these : a general court-martial was ordered on the 
 10th of April, 1840, within seven months after the of- 
 fence had been committed, to try the charges, &c. ; and 
 the accused pleaded in bar certain proceedings against 
 him, for the same act, pending before a civil court, thus 
 himself showing to the court-martial the impediment 
 that existed. The action and proceedings of the coui't- 
 
 * G. 0. No. 35, War Department. July Gth, 1848. f Page 217. 
 
THE TRIAL AISTD ITS INCIDENTS. 105 
 
 martial were suspended because of that impediment, 
 which was not removed until the 20th of Octoljer, 1841. 
 On the 2d of March, 1842, the trial of Cajitain Howe 
 was ordered to be proceeded with, by the reassembling 
 of the court-martial on tlie 10th of May, then next, 
 which was done accordingly. 
 
 The prosecution was therefore ordered in four months 
 and four days after the impediment was removed, mak- 
 ing less than eleven months of delay in prosecuting the 
 offence ; and the court therefore decided tliat the prose- 
 cution was within the exception and saving of the statute, 
 Avhich decision was affirmed by the commanding general. 
 
 The attorney-general states that the suspension of the 
 proceedings, because of the pending indictment before 
 the court of Florida, and the respect so paid to the civil 
 magistrate and civil proceedings, were justified by the 
 33d article of war, as also by precedents, sound reason, 
 and a just principle, that the military authority should 
 respect and await an instituted proceeding of the civil 
 authority, in cases where they have concurrent jurisdic- 
 tion over persons who have offended against both the 
 municipal law and the military law. 
 
 So long as the civil magistrate holds the party in ac- 
 tual physical custody, he holds him rightfully ; and the 
 military authorities are bound to aid him in this respect. 
 But if the party escape from the sheriff, or if he be re- 
 leased on bail, or if he be tried and acipiitted, or if he 
 be tried and convicted, in each of these cases, so soon as 
 he leaves the manual custody of the civil magistrate, he 
 reverts to the authority of his military superior. In all 
 the predicaments of life, he continues to be snh rt.ciUo. 
 The sacramentum militare clings to him indissolubly. 
 
106 MILITARY LA\V AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 until he is discharged by death, or by the lawful act of 
 the Pi'esideiit. 
 
 Where the accused mcikes his 'pha hut waives it, and 
 insists on his trial, the court-martial cannot enter upon 
 it. In reference to this point, the attorney-general ob- 
 serves : " That the prompt prosecution of offences was 
 considered as essential to the general discipline and 
 moral purity of armies ; that the design of the rule was 
 to discourage that ill-judged lenity which is so well 
 calculated to destroy the efficiency of an army, <fec. 
 The rule, therefore, being bottomed on these grounds of 
 public policy, I don't think that it is competent to an 
 individual to waive it ; or that a court-martial can pro- 
 ceed, even at the application of the arrested party, to 
 examine into offences of more than two years' standing 
 previous to the order summoning the couii, unless the 
 prosecutor can show that the party accused, by reason 
 of absence or other manifest impedinlent, had not been 
 amenable to justice within the time limited by the arti- 
 cle."* 
 
 4th. The accused may also plead a total or partial 
 Avant of sjJcoiiicatioH to the chai'ge as to matter, or as to 
 time, where time is an essential ingredient of the offence, 
 or necessary to fix the identity. This plea can be made 
 on the ground that the s])eeifieation was entirel}' want- 
 ing, or that, being couched in sucli vague terms and not 
 pointing to any specific crime, it did not admit of a ])art- 
 icular defence ; and that, moreover, it could not ])ermit 
 the plea of this previous trial in bar of another prosecu- 
 tion for the same identical ofience. It* admitted, the 
 plea would not bar a trial upon charges Avhere the facts 
 
 * Wirt, July 25th, 1S2Q 
 
 I 
 
THE TRIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. 10*7 
 
 were specifically set forth, and for this reason sucli ob- 
 jections are usually reserved until tlie defence, or are 
 made tlie sul)ject of remark subsequent to pleading, 
 since tlie course of the prosecution would elicit tlie fiicts 
 that were intended to cover tlie charge, and the finding 
 of the court would save the accused from a second trial 
 for the same offence. 
 
 Where the court has entered on the investigation, the 
 total wcDit of specification may be urged as good and 
 snfficient reason for declining all defence, and would 
 render the proceedings of none effect, as under the cir- 
 cumstances no sentence could be enforced. Simmons 
 cites a case, where the accused pleaded " Not guilty. I 
 do not know what crime I am tried for," to the charge 
 of " disgraceful conduct, he having been rej^eatedly gnilty 
 of offences by which he is deemed unworthy to remain 
 in his majesty's service." The court, however, found him 
 guilty, and recommended him to be discharged, <fec. The 
 decision of the judge advocate general was, that the 
 charge was so absolutely defective in all legal respects, 
 that it was impossible to confirm a finding of guilt there- 
 on ; and that he considered any revision of the sentence - 
 out of the question, as no sentence of punishment could 
 be properly adjudged or enforced upon a charge not sup- 
 portable by la\v. 
 
 5th. The j^risoner may make a plea in abaicmcnt, 
 which is usually a misnomer, or fiilse addition. The 
 court is competent to i)ermit the flaw or error to be cor- 
 rected, upon the representation of the accused; "for it 
 is a rule upon all pleas of al)atement, that he who takes 
 advantage of a flaw must, at the same time, show how 
 it may be amended."* In case of a misnomer, the pris- 
 
 * 4 Blackstone's Com., 334. 
 
108 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 oner is hound to give liis real name, and the charges as 
 corrected, or new charges made according to his aver- 
 ments, may be tried by the court. The effect of this 
 plea is, to dehiy the proceedings. 
 
 The same may be said of a plea made because no co'py 
 of charges was famished the prisoner, or that there is a 
 material variance between the copy furnished him and 
 that upon which he is arraigned. In either case the 
 proceedings will be delayed, to allow proper time for 
 the prisoner to prepare to meet and defend himself fi"om 
 the accusations. 
 
 Form. In making these pleas there is no special form 
 required by courts-martial. The prisoner states his plea 
 in ^vriting, or his verbal statement is taken down by the 
 judge advocate. In all cases, when necessary, the pris- 
 oner is of right permitted to call up evidence to sub- 
 stantiate his objections, and is also at liberty to addi'ess 
 the court. The prosecution may bring in rebutting evi- 
 dence, and is entitled to a reply. All this goes upon 
 the record. 
 
 Where the plea is not admitted by the court, the jms- 
 oner has still the privilege of pleading to the general 
 issue, guilty or not guilty. Should he adhere to the 
 unadmitted plea, and refuse to plead guilty or not guilty, 
 the court will proceed as if he had stood mute, or plead- 
 ed not guilty. 
 
 Not Guilty. The most usual plea offered is, " Xot 
 guilty," upon which the trial proceeds. The pleas are 
 always recorded. 
 
 AVitiic<«scs. The judge advocate now calls in his first 
 witness, and, if necessary, clears the com^t-room of all 
 persons who may have been summoned, as it is a general 
 
THE TRIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. 109 
 
 rule to exclude all sucli on both sides, during tlie exam- 
 ination of any witness. 
 
 Previous to the introduction of the first witness, the 
 judge advocate may open the case by such a statement 
 of its merits and view of the evidence as he may deem 
 expedient, restricted, however, to language perfectly re- 
 spectful to the court, not foreign to the charges, and not 
 reproachful to the accused. This method of opening the 
 trial is almost unknown in the practice of our courts- 
 martial, and should only be resorted to when the in- 
 tricacy of the case demands a prefatory statement that 
 will cause the testimony to be better appreciated and 
 more easily applicable. This statement must aj^pear, in 
 full, upon the record. 
 
 When the judge advocate intends to request the as- 
 sistance of the person who has preferred the accusation, 
 the latter, if also a witness, should be the first examined, 
 and his examination should be so complete as to pre- 
 clude the necessity of calling him to testify again after 
 he has heard the testimony of other witnesses. Cases 
 may occur where, after having heard some or all of the 
 evidence, a person may be called as a witness. This fact 
 does not render him incomj^etent, though it may aifect 
 his credibility. 
 
 Competency. When a witness is produced, any ob- 
 jection to his competency ought to be stated before he 
 takes the oath. 
 
 The witness is sworn by the judge advocate, and his 
 name, rank, regiment, or corps, or distinctive condition, 
 is recorded at length, so that he may be readily identi- 
 fied by tlie description. 
 
 The examination of witnesses is invariably in the 
 
110 lOLITAEY LAA\'^ AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 presence of eacli member of the court, because the coun- 
 tenance, looks, and gestures of a witness add to, or de- 
 tract from the weight of his testimony. The witnesses 
 are sometimes directed to give a narrative of what they 
 know in relation to the matter under investigation, as 
 affording in many cases the most natural method of de- 
 tailing the circumstances and facts in the order of time, 
 thus presenting a clear and consistent statement. The 
 usual and preferable mode of conducting the examina- 
 tion, however, is by interrogation — by question and an- 
 swer — as being the more certain, du'ect, and searching 
 means of eliciting evidence. 
 
 All evidence whatever should be recorded on the pro- 
 ceedings, in the order in which it is received by the 
 court, and, if possible, in the very words of the ^^-itness. 
 Should the judge advocate use his own language, he 
 constitutes himself the judge of the shade of meaning 
 intended, and may not convey the proper idea to the 
 minds of the members, or to the reviewing authority. 
 It is best, therefore, to record the very words and pecu- 
 liarity of expression, for the benefit of those who are to 
 decide on the evidence. If there be any doubt as to 
 the idea intended, the necessary explanation must be 
 elicited from the witness himself. 
 
 A witness may refresh his memory l)y referring to a 
 onemorandinn of facts that he may have made, l)ut this 
 does not permit his reading a written statement of the 
 testimony he is to give. The opposite party, when 
 cross-examining, must be allowed to ins23ect the memo- 
 randum used by the witness. 
 
 Where the loitness is too ill to attend the court, the 
 latter may adjourn to the room of the former to receive 
 
TBE TEIAL AND ITS ESTCIDENTS. Ill 
 
 his evidence, l)iit tlie loliole court must attend for that 
 purpose. This, of course, would only be done where the 
 witness was at a convenient distance, as at the same post 
 where the court is convened. 
 
 Deposition. 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 used in evidence ; provided the prose- 
 cutor and person accused are present at the taking of 
 the same, or are duly notified thereof* 
 
 The 74th article of war by providing, under certain 
 restrictions and in cases not capital, that depositions 
 may be taken, negatives their allowance in other cases ; 
 and the existence of the provision sufficiently proves 
 that without it, such testimony would not be comj)e- 
 tent, even in those minor cases.f 
 
 Compulsory AitcBttdaiicc. Officers and soldiers, and 
 other persons connected with the army may be com- 
 pelled to appear before a court-martial ; and the above-w 
 quoted article supplies to some extent the deficiency of 
 law in this regard with respect to non-military persons, 
 by providing that their testimony may be taken by de- 
 position. Why compulsory process is not permitted in 
 the case of civilians, arises very naturally from the ex- 
 cessive jealousy of the military state that has always 
 existed in free governments, and the repugnance of a 
 free people to be brought under military control even 
 in the cause of justice and right. It is indirectly but 
 another proof of the entire subordination of the mili- 
 tary to the civil power. 
 
 The custom has oljtained of reading tlie charges and 
 
 * 74th article of war. f Attorney-general's opinions, June 30th, 1830. 
 
112 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 specifications, or portions of them, to a ^^dtness as soon 
 as he is sworn, and prior to his examination. This is 
 most objectionable as a rule, and is in direct variance 
 with the practice of civil tribunals, which, by analogy, 
 are om* safest o-iiides in the absence of law or re2:ulation. 
 Whenever the reading of the sj^ecification may operate 
 as a leading question to the mtness, either as to time, 
 place, or particular words and expressions, it should of 
 necessity be omitted ; and as it is difficult to draw the 
 distinction between cases in which this method should 
 be ol)served or omitted, the rule should l^e fixed that all 
 examinations of witnesses be by interrogation, and that 
 the specifications be read to him and he put on a narra- 
 tive, only in clear and unol^jectionable cases, and as rare 
 exceptions to the general rule. 
 
 All questions to a loitness are reduced to Aviitlng by 
 the individual originating them, whether he be the judge 
 advocate, the accused, or a member of the coiu't. The 
 question is read aloud and entered uj)on the record by 
 the judge advocate, and if no oljjection be made to it by 
 the opposite party or by the court, it is addressed to 
 the witness. Either party and any member of the court 
 may object to the putting of any question that is j^ro- 
 posed, and whenever objection is made, the court is 
 cleared and a majority of votes determines whether or 
 not it shall be put. If the question is rejected it shall 
 not be expunged from the record, except by permission 
 of the court and \A\\\ the consent of both parties, but 
 shall a2)pear in the proceedings with the decision of the 
 court thereon. 
 
 In all cases the court must have the statements for 
 and against the propounding of a question, recorded for 
 
THE TRIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. 113 
 
 the iuformation of tlie reviewing authority; but the 
 court may decline receiving any protest against any of 
 its decisions. When the judge advocate considers a 
 question as too objectionable to be read in the hearing 
 of the mtness, his duty is, to ask the court to be cleared 
 before reading it, and have their decision upon it, as 
 witnesses may be instructed by improper questions, even 
 when not admitted. 
 
 A question put hy the court cannot be objected to by 
 either party, as the court is the sole judge of what evi- 
 dence is to be admitted or rejected ; and neither party 
 can insist on a question being put, that has been reject- 
 ed — the decision of the court being final. A question 
 put by an individual member, if accepted, is recorded 
 as hy the court ; if rejected, as hy a memher. 
 
 The witness being sworn, the party who produces 
 him, proceeds with the examination which is called the 
 examination in chief ^ the opposite party then examines 
 him in what is styled the cross examination ; the party 
 that introduced the witness can question him upon such 
 points as the opposite party may have touched upon, — 
 this is called the re-examination. It is customary and 
 best for the com-t to defer questioning the witness until 
 after his entire examination by both parties has been 
 concluded, although the court is competent to question 
 at au}^ time. It is essential to the regularity of the pro- 
 ceeding's of a court-martial, that this mode of examining 
 witnesses be strictly adhered to, as indiscriminate ques- 
 tioning is apt to confuse the witness and perplex the case. 
 
 Pending his examination, the witness has a right to 
 explain tlie evidence he has given, but entries already 
 made in the proceedings are not, as a consequence, to 
 
114 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MARTIAL. 
 
 1)6 erased or expunged; and tlie coui-t may call upon 
 liim to explain any doubt that may arise after his exam- 
 ination has closed. When deemed necessary by the 
 court or desired by a witness, the record of his evidence 
 when completed is read over to Mm immediately before 
 he leaves the court, and he is desired to coiTect it if 
 erroneous, and any remark or explanation is entered on 
 the proceedings ; but the testimony should not be read 
 to him, or he be permitted to refer to it, when under or 
 previous to cross-examination, as such a course might 
 defeat the very ends and purposes of a cross-examina- 
 tion. No erasure or obliteration is permitted under any 
 circumstances, as it is absolutely necessary that the 
 reviewing authority should have the most amj^le means 
 of judging, both of discrepancies in the testimony of 
 witnesses and of incidents that have been made the sub- 
 ject of comment by either party. Immaterial questions, 
 or such as have been put inadvertently and answered, 
 might be expunged^ the parties not objecting, but it is 
 not advisable to follow such precedents. It is best to 
 make a minute of the sense of the court on the matter 
 inadvertently admitted, for the benefit of the reviewing 
 authority. After having left the court, and even on a sub- 
 sequent day, a witness may request to be readmitted in or- 
 der to coiTect or amend the evidence he may have given. 
 
 Sliould the prisoner, having closed his cross-examina- 
 tion, think proper subsequently to recall the prosecu- 
 tor's witness in his defence, the witness will then be 
 subject to cross-examination by the prosecution. 
 
 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 sub- 
 
THE TRIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. 115 
 
 mitted by the party for the consideration of the court, 
 who generally permit it to l)e put.* 
 
 During the prosecution, all the testimony in substan- 
 tiation of the charges and specifications must be pro- 
 duced, and no further evidence shall be permitted in 
 'proof of the facts spec-ified, after the prosecution is 
 closed. The protection to the prisoner of his particular 
 line of defence, demands a rigid adherence to this rule. 
 
 AVhen the prosecution is closed, the judge advocate 
 must enter upon the record a minute to that effect. 
 
 Defence. The accused then enters on his defence, 
 but before proceeding he may deem it essential to have 
 a day or two for prei)aration, which is always granted 
 by the court at his request. He then begins his defence 
 by first examining his witnesses, reserving his address 
 to the conclusion of such examination ; or he may pre- 
 mise the examination of witnesses mth a statement of 
 those defences which he means to support by evidence, 
 defeiTing his remarks on the address and testimony 
 offered on the part of the prosecution, until after the 
 examination of his own witnesses. 
 
 The above is strictly in accordance with the customs 
 of courts-mai-tial ; that is, to close with tlie prosecution 
 upon the entire matter in issue, before calling in wit- 
 nesses for the defence. Where, liowever, the charges 
 and specifications to be investigated are exceedingly 
 voluminous, and the hearing of the testimony requires 
 a considerable length of time, a departure fi-om the 
 usual mode of proceeding may be justified for ol)vious 
 reasons, and the court may order the production of the 
 evidence on each separate charge, as far as practicable, 
 
 * SimmoDS, p. 225. 
 
116 MILITARY LAT^T AND COURTS-MAKTIAL. 
 
 before proceeding witli tlie next. This would simplify 
 the deliberations of the court, and the labors of the re- 
 viewing authority, as the evidence on the part of the 
 prosecution and defence would thus be brought in jux- 
 taposition.* 
 
 Address. The prisoner having finally closed his ex- 
 amination of witnesses, may request reasonable time for 
 the preparation of his written defence. He offers in 
 this address such statement or argument as he may 
 deem conducive to weaken the force of the prosecution, 
 by placing his own conduct in the most favorable light. 
 He has a right to construe the evidence adduced in any 
 way, to draw any deductions from it, and to explain all 
 that may seem to bear against him by argument from 
 facts established, but he has no right to testify for him- 
 self by statements not supported by the testimony be- 
 fore the court, or to introduce documents or other evi- 
 dence which he has neglected to present at the proper 
 time. 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 the 
 prisoner. As he has an undoubted right to impeach, 
 by evidence, the character of the witnesses brought 
 against him, so is he justified in contrasting and remark- 
 ing on their testimony, and on the motives by which 
 they or the prosecutor may appear to have been influ- 
 enced. All coarse and insulting language is, however, 
 to be avoided ; nor ought invective ever to be indulged 
 in; the most pointed defence may be couched in the 
 most refined language. 
 
 It is the practice in our service to allow the prisoner 
 
 * PUlow's trial, pp. 1 2, 384. 
 
 J 
 
THE TRIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. Il7 
 
 the privilege of Laving liis address read to the court hy 
 Msprofessional counsel^ or by a military friend. There 
 is no substantial reason for any prohibition in tliis re- 
 gard, and the rigid practice in Great Britain has, of late 
 years, been changed, and the cases have been frequent 
 where professional counsel have been jiermitted to read 
 the ^vritten defence. In all cases, at the request of the 
 prisoner, the judge advocate must read the defence, it 
 being his duty to read all papers for the court, that 
 may be handed him by the prisoner. 
 
 Pleas in Bar of Judgment. A prisoner in his defence 
 may not only negative the allegations contained in the 
 charges and specifications, but may bring forward any 
 matters of excuse or justification, embodying the sub- 
 stance, and in place of pleas in bar of trial. There are 
 also certain grounds of exemption from the censure of 
 the law, that may be brought forth in evidence, embody- 
 ing the matter and in place oi pleas in har of judgment^ 
 such pleas being seldom or never made. 
 
 Sir William Blackstone observes : " All the several 
 pleas and excuses which protect the committer of a for- 
 T)idden act from the punishment which is otherwise an- 
 nexed thereto, may be reduced to this single considera- 
 tion, the Avant or defect of will. To constitute a crime 
 against human la^vs, there must l)e, first, a vicious "will, 
 and secondly, an unhnvful act consequent upon such 
 A'icious vr^y He then particularizes three cases, in 
 which the lo'dl does not join with the act : 
 
 1. Where there is a defect of understanding. 
 
 2. Where there is understanding and loill sufficient 
 residing in the part}', but not called forth and exerted 
 at the time of the action done. 
 
118 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 3. Where the action is constrained by some outward 
 force and violence. 
 
 Of the excuses which may be considered by a court- 
 martial, lunacy and intoxication belong to the fii-st class ; 
 misfortune and ignorance may be referred to the second ; 
 and compulsion or necessity to the third. 
 
 Ab^ioiutc insanity, like total idiocy, excuses from the 
 guilt, and of course from the punishment of a crime 
 committed during this incapacity, but if the lunatic has 
 lucid intervals and reason sufficient to discern rig;ht 
 from wrong, he must be held to ansAver for what he does 
 in those intervals. So far the law is clear and explicit, 
 but difficidties arise in the case of alleged crimes com- 
 mitted l)y persons afflicted with insane delusions in 
 respect to one or more particular subjects or persons, 
 but not insane in other resj^ects. 
 
 Intoxication is looked upon by the law as an aggra- 
 vation of the offence, rather than as an excuse for any 
 criminal act; and the practice of courts-martial is 
 almost universally based on the maxim, tliat he who is 
 guilty of any offence whatever, through his voluntary 
 drunkenness, shall be punished for it as much as if he 
 had been sol)er."^' Experience teaches us that drunken- 
 ness is the prolific source of most of the serious offences 
 committed in the military state, and the only way of 
 eradicating the evil is by not 'overlooking the cause in 
 punishing the crime. Besides, the ease with which 
 drunkenness can be counterfeited would render it a 
 ready and safe cloak for palliating the enormity of a 
 crime, were it the custom thus to privilege one offence 
 })y the commission of another. 
 
 * 1 Hawk., 3. 
 
THE TRIAL AND ITS ITsTCTBENTS. 119 
 
 misfortune, or Cliaiicc. It is lield tliat an accidental 
 miscliief caused by tlie performance of a lawful act, ex- 
 cuses the party from all guilt ; but if the mischief be 
 the result of an unlawful act — not merely technically 
 illegal, but morally vicious — his want of foresight is no 
 excuse.* 
 
 Ignorance, or mistake, is a defect of will — as where 
 a man intending to do a lawful act does an unlawful 
 one. Suppose a soldier, firing at a target by order of 
 his superior, kills a bystander, such an act is not crimi- 
 nal. A mistake, however, as to a point of law, is no sort 
 of defence in criminal charges ; neither is ignorance of 
 the laws and rules for the government and regulation of 
 the army, or any order officially published, with which 
 it may be the duty of officers of the army to be familiar, 
 admitted as an excuse for their non-observance. 
 
 Conipuiiiiou, or inevitable necessity^ is a plea that may 
 frequently come in question before courts-martial, and 
 therefore requires particular notice. These are a con- 
 straint upon the will, by which a man is urged to do 
 that which his judgment disapproves, and which, it is 
 presumed, his will, if left to itself, would reject. As 
 punishments, therefore, are only inflicted for the abuse 
 of that free will which Grod has given to man, it is 
 highly just and equitable that a man should be excused 
 for those acts which are done through unavoidable force 
 and compulsion.f This exculpation, admitted by the 
 common law to arise from compulsion, courts-martial 
 would be disposed to extend to acts performed in obe- 
 dience to the order of a military superior. If deatli 
 ensue from the fire of a soldier acting under the illegal 
 
 * 4 Black., 2G. t -^ I^lack., 26. 
 
120 MILITAEY LAAV AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 orders of his superior, sucli order would not justify tlie 
 act in the eye of the common la^v; and the soldier 
 equally with his superior would be guilty of murder ; 
 yet a court-martial would probably consider such neces- 
 sity as a justification of the act of the soldier. Time, 
 the law demands sti'ict obedience to the " lawful com- 
 mands "* of a superior. Unlawful or illegal orders are 
 therefore not obligatory, and it is la\\'ful in a military 
 sense to disobey an unlaMi\d command of a superior. 
 As the recipient of the order must of necessity be the 
 judge of its legality to the extent of his obedience, he 
 disobeys the order at his peril. As long as the com- 
 mands are not decidedly and flagrantly in opposition to, 
 or in violation of, the laws of the land or the established 
 customs of war, and therefore apparently unlawful to a 
 common uudei'standing without particular reflection or 
 consideration, so long must the commands of a superior 
 meet with prompt and unhesitating obedience. Hesita- 
 tion in a soldier is, under certain circumstances, a 
 crime ; and liesitation is inseparable from reflection and 
 consideration; reflection and consideration, therefore, 
 must, in some sense, be considered as a military ofl^'ence. 
 
 In cases where tlie legality is doubtful, the safest ride 
 is obedience, " for in all such cases an officer should act 
 upon the reasonable presumption that his superior was 
 autliorized to issue an order, Avhich he might be author- 
 ized to issue. If he acts otherwise, he does so at his 
 peril, and subjects himself to the risk of being punish- 
 ed for disobedience of orders.'^f 
 
 Another species of compulsion or necessity, sometimes 
 pleaded in cases of mutiny or rebellion, arises from 
 
 * 9th article of war. f G. 0.. No. 34, war department. September 4th. 1S52. 
 
THE TKIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. 121 
 
 threats or menaee-s' \\\\\(A\ induce a fear of deatli or other 
 bodily harm, and whicli take away, for that reason, the 
 guilt of man}' crimes and misdemeanors f but the pres- 
 ent fear of death is the only force that does excuse, and 
 this force and fear must continue all the time the party 
 remains with the mutineers or rebels, and must be sho^vTi 
 to have been actual force or fear, and not the resultant of 
 an excited imagination. The follo^ving case is applica- 
 ble to the subject and illustrates it. In 1813, a sergeant 
 of His Majesty's 60th regiment of foot, who had orig- 
 inally deserted from the French, entered that regiment 
 by a voluntary enlistment. On the advance of the 
 army into Spain, under the Duke of Wellington, he was 
 taken prisoner l)y the French. To save his life, forfeit- 
 ed by the act of desertion, he entered into the coqys des 
 etrangers^ set apart in the French service for such men, 
 as an inducement to them to return to it. At tlie bat- 
 tle of Victoria, he was again taken prisoner by the 
 English, and a general court-martial was ordered to try 
 him for desertion. The first sentence acquitted him of 
 the act of tlestrtion^ there being the ^^^werful induce- 
 ment to the act, with the view of savins; his life : but 
 the sentence was revised, and it is stated, that on revis- 
 ion, he was sentenced to suffer deatli., and was after- 
 ward shot in the presence of that division of the army 
 to which he behmged. It is also understood that it 
 was intimated to the court, tliat the excuse pleaded by 
 the prisoner was inadmissible, as he should have prefer- 
 red death rather than to have entered the service of the 
 enemy.f 
 
 The facts, in the above cited case, seem not to have 
 
 * -1 Black. 29. f Rough, p. 364. 
 
122 JIILITAEY LAW AND COUETS-MARTIAL. 
 
 been clearly stated. For, if lie was taken prisoner by 
 the French and entered their service to save his life, the 
 act, though most reprehensible, was not desertion^ the 
 circumstances amounted to compulsion, pro timore mor- 
 tis^ and he was therefore excusable. If, however, he 
 actually deserted from the English, and afterward fall- 
 ing into the hands of the French, he thus endeavored 
 to save his life, the verdict of the court-martial was 
 just, and he deserved to die for desertion. 
 
 Reply. The prisoner having closed his defence by 
 delivering his written address, the judge advocate has 
 the right to reply. By a reply is meant, a right of re- 
 marking by argument upon the evidence in general, 
 and upon the address of the accused, and of controvert- 
 ing by testimony any neio matter that may have been 
 introduced by the accused in his examination in chief 
 of witnesses. He can, however, only adduce fresh 
 evidence when new matter has been introduced in 
 the defence; as, for example, a prisoner is charged 
 with mutiny, and the charge is clearly j^roved, but 
 in his defence the prisoner brings evidence to show 
 that he committed tlie act under compulsion, against 
 his own will, and in fear of his life. This being new 
 matter^ to ^Nhich the evidence of the prosecution does 
 not at all apply, and which could not in reason have 
 been anticipated, the judge advocate is permitted to 
 refute it, if possible, by the examination of witnesses 
 or the production of documents. So also, should the 
 accused have entered on an examination reflecting on 
 the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, the 
 judge advocate is allowed not only to address the court 
 in reply, but also to examine witnesses to the new mat- 
 
THE TRIAL AND ITS INCIDENTS. 123 
 
 ter for the purpose of re-establisliing therjiamctei'ofhiii 
 witnesses, whose testimony has been impeached. 
 
 The coui"t, being the judge of what is new matter, 
 must be extremely watchful to prevent the judge advo- 
 cate from examining any point not introduced as new 
 matter by the jjrisoner. Neither should he be permit- 
 ted to examine on any points which might have been 
 foreseen prior to the defence of the accused. For Lord 
 Ellenborough has well remarked : " If any one fact he 
 adduced hy the defendant^ to which an answer can be 
 given, the plaintiff must have an opportunity given for 
 so doing; but this must be understood of a specific 
 fact, he cannot go into general evidence in reply to the 
 defendant's case ; there is no instance in which the 
 plaintiff" is entitled to go into half his case, and reserve 
 the remainder." 
 
 When the judge advocate has been allowed to adduce 
 evidence in his reply, to controvert new 'matter introduced 
 by the defence, the accused is permitted to cross-examine 
 such witnesses to the extent of the examination in chief. 
 In this case, he is also entitled to a rejoinder in which 
 he may attempt to invalidate its effect ; but he is not 
 permitted to call Avitnesses except for the purpose of re- 
 establishing the credit of such witnesses as may have 
 been impugned by the witnesses for the prosecution in 
 the re2)ly. 
 
 A second reply, or sur-rejoinder may be allowed 
 to the prosecution, to an extent limited by the argu- 
 ments of the accused in his rejoinder. But where these 
 various addresses are necessary and called for, recent 
 practice and usage have been more in accordance with 
 the prevailing impression, as it is laid down by Sir 
 
124 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 Charles J. Napier, that " the prisoner has the right to 
 speak last." This is more conformable with the gen- 
 erous principles of the military law, derived not from 
 the wi'itten rules and articles, but from the custom of 
 war. 
 
 Recall "Witnesses. After the prosecution and defence 
 are closed, and the court has been cleared for delibera- 
 tion, it is still competent for a court-martial to recall a 
 witness for such examination as may be deemed essen- 
 tial, the parties, however, being present. And indeed, 
 the court is at liberty, at any stage of the proceedings 
 hefore the finding, to recall evidence for such j^urpose, 
 but this does not authorize the coui"t to originate evi- 
 dence by calling "witnesses not produced by either 
 party. The extreme limit, in this respect, to which a 
 court is justified in going by the custom of service, is 
 the calling as a mtness, any iudi-^ddual alluded to in 
 the evidence before the court, for the purpose of eluci- 
 dating any doubtful point. 
 
CHAPTEE XI. 
 
 THE FINDING. 
 
 The judge advocate and prisoner having laid their 
 case before the com-t, the latter is cleared for delibera- 
 tion, in order to decide upon the question of guilt. 
 
 A fair copy of the record of the proceedings is read 
 over by the judge advocate, which answers the purpose 
 of l)ringing to the view of the members, the entire evi- 
 dence in a connected chain. As the fair copy is daily 
 compared with the original manuscript in the presence 
 of the coui-t, during the reading of the previous day's 
 proceedings by the judge advocate, the members are 
 positive that it is a faithful record of the evidence. In 
 intricate cases and where the testimony is voluminous, 
 the judge advocate shall be prepared with an index for 
 easy reference to the record. 
 
 In deliberating upon the evidence, and its bearing 
 upon the several points of accusation involved in the 
 specifications, it is the practice of courts-martial for 
 members to indulge in a free and open conversation^ 
 with a view to a more full and correct understanding 
 of the case in its various ramifications, and, if possible, 
 to harmonize conflicting opinions, in regard to the rela- 
 tions existing between the facts as alleged in the specifi- 
 cations and the crime as set forth in the charge. In this 
 discussion, the utmost care should l)e had by each mem- 
 
126 
 
 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-JIAETIAL. 
 
 ber not to intimate his own final opinion and vote, so 
 as to avoid any influence tliat sueli intimation might 
 have on the vote or opinion of another, otherwise it 
 would have the effect of counteracting the intention of 
 the law, which requires the junior to vote first. 
 
 ]VIr. Tytler veiy properly remarks, that the " members 
 should reason and deliberate separately on each charge 
 (and specification) ; candidly discussing the import of 
 the evidence, and allowing its full weight to every argu- 
 ment or presumption in favor of the prisoner." The 
 paramount object of every member should be perfect 
 impartiality. He should divest himself of every desire 
 to see the innocent suffer or the guilty escape; should 
 not permit false pity or undue severity to influence his 
 judgment; and should keep constantly in mind the re- 
 quirements of his oath, to "well and truly try and deter- 
 mine according to evidence the matter" now before him, 
 and to " duly administer justice without partiality, favor 
 or affection." 
 
 At this stage of the proceedings, the dufy of the judge 
 advocate being sim2:)ly to act as registrar of the court, 
 and to advise on legal points when his opinions may l)e 
 claimed, he necessarily abstains from rnakino; any re- 
 mark by which his judgment as to the guilt or inno- 
 cence of the prisoner may be ascertained. 
 
 The court must bear in mind that they are bound to 
 exhaust all the charges and specifications that have 
 come before them, by expressly acquittinc/ or convicting 
 the prisoner, severally, of each specification and of each 
 charge. 
 
 Voting. Having ascertained that the members are 
 ready for the vote, after full examination of the evidence 
 
THE FINDING. 12*7 
 
 and iiiature deliberation thereon, the president signifies 
 the fact to the judge advocate. The latter then reads, 
 in consecutive order, the specifications to the 1st charge, 
 and then the first charge, and so on with the other 
 charges and specifications ; taking the votes in succes- 
 sion, by addressing each member, beginning " with the 
 youngest in commission."* 
 
 The judge advocate notes the vote of each meml^er as 
 he gives it, but this memorandum must he destroyed 
 when the aggregate opinion or decision of the court has 
 been determined and recorded. Whether this memo- 
 randimi should be preserved or destroyed, has given 
 rise to some discussion. The oath taken by the mem- 
 bers, as well as that by the judge advocate, contains the 
 same words, as follows : that you Avill not " disclose or 
 discover the vote or opinion of any particular member 
 of the court-martial, unless required to give evidence 
 thereof, as a ^vitness, by a court of justice, in due course 
 of law," and, consequently, the same reasoning that 
 would require a judge advocate to retain such a memo- 
 randum would necessarily apply with equal force to 
 every member of the court. The loss of either of these 
 would reveal at a glance the vote of every individual, 
 and the knowledge of the existence of such a paper in 
 the possession of the judge advocate alone, would im- 
 douTjtedly exercise an evil influence upon members in 
 their rigid administration of justice, as a mere accident 
 might give publicity to the secret record. The cases 
 are extremely rare when such information may be re- 
 quired b}^ a court of justice, and the evil that might 
 result fi-om a defective memory in the event of such a 
 
 * 7 2d article of war. 
 
128 
 
 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-ZSIAETIAL. 
 
 call, would be slight in comparison to the dangers to 
 the administration of impartial justice that would as- 
 sui'edly follow its universal practice. The inile then 
 should be, that no ^^ritten minute of the votes be pre- 
 served, unless so ordered by the unanimous voice of the 
 com't. 
 
 As the oath provides for the concealment of the vote 
 of each particular member, it would be a dii'ect viola- 
 tion of it to say that the vote was unanimous, whether 
 for acquittal or conviction, thus making public the oj^in- 
 ions of all. It would also be highly reprehensible to 
 state what number voted for the particular decision of 
 the court, as it might afford a clue to individual oj^inions. 
 
 The conviction or acquittal of the prisoner is deter- 
 mined by a TYiajority of votes^ except in cases where the 
 law condemns him to suffer death upon conviction, 
 leaving to the court no discretion, as is declared liy the 
 55th article of war, for forcing a safeguard in foreign 
 parts, and by the 2d section, concerning spies.* For the 
 87th article of war declares that no person shall be' sen- 
 tenced to suffer death but by the concurrence of iioo- 
 thirds of the memhers of a general court-martial, nor 
 except in the cases herein expressly mentioned, and 
 therefore, in the cases above referred to, where the sen- 
 tence of death is affixed by the law to his conviction, 
 that conviction cannot be declared but by a two-thirds 
 vote. The record must explicitly state that two-thiixls 
 of the members concurred therein, in all such cases of 
 conviction, as well as in all other cases where the ac- 
 cused is sentenced to suffer death at the discretion of 
 the court. This is important in the decision of so grave 
 
 * See act approved Feb. IStli, 1862, sec. 4. 
 
THE FINDING. 129 
 
 a question as tliat of life and death, and shows, more- 
 over, that the requirements of the law have been strict- 
 ly followed. 
 
 Votes Divided. Should the coui't be reduced to an 
 even number, by its organization, or by sickness or 
 death, and their votes be equally divided as to the find- 
 ing, the prevailing custom is, that the prisoner shall 
 have the benefit of an acquittal. 
 
 The Verdict. Instead of a general verdict of guilt or 
 acquittal upon the Avhole of every specification, the 
 court may find a special verdict, that is, the accused be 
 found guilty of a portion of the specification, and not 
 guilty of the remainder ; or may find him guilty of the 
 facts as set foi-th in the specification, but attach no crim- 
 inality thereto ; or may find him guilty of a portion, 
 and find the facts as stated in the remainder, but declare 
 them void of criminality. The prisoner must, however, 
 be acquitted or convicted of every ]3art of each of the 
 several specifications and charges of which he stands 
 accused, and the decision of the court in all their find- 
 ings must be specific, so that the quantum of punish- 
 ment inflicted may be seen to be proportionate to the 
 degree of guilt. 
 
 The accused may be found guilty of the entire facts 
 set forth in the specifications, and yet be acquitted of 
 the charge. This may happen in constructive charges, 
 where the essence of the charge and the guilt of the 
 ])risoner rests on imputations built on the facts alleged 
 in the specification — as that there was criminal knowl- 
 edge or intent — but of which he has been cleared by 
 the testimony. 
 
 In illustration of the above, suppose the charge to be 
 9 
 
130 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 laid under the 45th article of war, " Drunhenness on 
 duty,^'' and the accused be found guilty of the specifica- 
 tions set forth to cover the charge. In such a case he 
 must be found guilty of the violation of the 45th article 
 of war, or be acquitted. The court cannot find the 
 accused guilty of the specifications as an oftence under 
 the 99th article — "conduct to the prejudice of good 
 order and military discipline." " It is true that a court- 
 martial has cognizance, under the 99th article, of all 
 offences against military discipline though not named 
 in the other articles, yet it is necessary that the offence 
 against the 99th article shall be duly and regularly 
 charged, in order that the accused may have notice of 
 that to which he is to answer. A charo-e of one of the 
 specific offences defined in other articles of war is not 
 notice of a general charge of some disorder or neglect 
 within the purview of the 99th article.* 
 
 Again : on the charge of " conduct tinhecomlng an offi- 
 cer and a gentleman^'' the coiu't returned a special find- 
 ing upon the specifications, and the foUo^Hng finding 
 upon the charge : " Not guilty of the charge, but guilty 
 of conduct unbecoming an officer, and to the prejudice 
 of good order and military discipline." 
 
 " There is no such offence known to the articles of 
 war as conduct un1 )ecoming an officer. The unbecoming 
 conduct of a commissioned officer of which the law takes 
 notice, and authorizes a court-martial to take cognizance, 
 is ' conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.' There 
 is no minor indecorum, no unbecoming conduct not un- 
 becomino- an officer and a c-entleman, that the law submits 
 to the jurisdiction of a court-martial, and the court in pro- 
 
 * G. 0. No. 7, War Department. Juno 18th, 1856. 
 
THE FINDING. 131 
 
 noimcing tlie conduct of Lieutenant S ' not nnhe- 
 
 coming an officer and a gentleman/ have acquitted liim of 
 the legal charge before them. At the same time they 
 give judgment against him under the 99th article of war. 
 He was not charged with any offence under that article. 
 If charges are so drawn as to bring them expressly, and 
 exclusively, under particular articles of war, a court- 
 martial cannot convict under other articles. 
 
 " The sentence of .the court-martial in this case is, 
 therefore, voiciy^' 
 
 Again : on the charge of " illegal conduct to tlie lyrejii- 
 dice of good order and military discipline,^'' the court 
 confirm the 2^1ea of guilty made by the accused to the 
 1st and 2d specifications, "find the facts set forth, but 
 attach no criminality thereto." The following was the 
 decision thereon. " In this trial, it was shown by the 
 defence, that the citizen who was flogged at the guard- 
 house, had entered the baiTacks, armed, and beat a sol- 
 dier; and that no civil trilnmal to punish the offence 
 was nearer than one hundred and seventy miles. But 
 shall the army assume to remedy the defects of the ad- 
 ministration of the civil laws? A court-martial has 
 here adjudged that no ^vrong is done by an officer who 
 causes his miard to floo; a citizen. * * * The virtual 
 ac(]uittal on the 1st and 2d specifications is disap- 
 })r()ved.f 
 
 Asrain : at a court-martial, the accused is convicted 
 of " signing a false certificate of transportation,^' but 
 acquitted of signing the same " Tcnoivingly^' whirh \vas 
 the fraudulent intent imputed to him in the matter. 
 
 * G. 0. No. 8, War Department, July 23d, 1856. 
 f G. 0. No. Q, War Department, June 21st, 1858. 
 
132 JIILITAKY LAW AND COURTS-MAKTIAL. 
 
 The "War De2:)artmeut was of opinion that this finding- 
 entitled the accused to an acquittal, and is in legal effect, 
 an acquittal. 
 
 " It is not necessary in military charges to allege that 
 the acts were done 'maliciously,' or 'wilfully,' or 
 'knowingly.' A specification of fact is good without 
 such expressions. But if they are alleged, and are neg- 
 atived T)y the court in their verdict, then the inference 
 from the fact fails, and the accused l)eing acquitted of 
 the intention, is acquitted of the offence. That is cer- 
 tainly the legal effect and meaning of such finding. 
 What other meaning was in the mind of the court, is 
 matter of dou})t. They find that the accused did not 
 ' hioioinglif sign ; meaning, probably, that he did not 
 know the certificate was false. Then did he sign it in 
 good foith, to the best of his knowledge and belief? or 
 in such ignorance and. disregard of what he certified as 
 made the certificate an act of bad faith ? In that find- 
 ing of the specification, it sustains the charge. But the 
 court negative the charge, and therefore reject that 
 sense of the specification."* 
 
 Although it be settled that a prisoner cannot be con- 
 victed of an offence different from that with which he is 
 charged, it is equally well established, that a coui't-mar- 
 tial can convict of a lesser degree of the same offence al- 
 leged against him. It is therefore necessaiy to note the 
 distinctions, if any, between the crime charged and the 
 actual degree of offence proved. A prisoner may be 
 acquitted of the charge of desertion., but be convicted of 
 the lesser offence absence witliout leave. Although these 
 two oftences are to be found in two distinct articles of 
 
 * G. 0. No. 28, War Department, Dec. 31st, 1859. 
 
THE FINDING. 133 
 
 war, yet desertion is Init an aggravated degree of the 
 crime of al)sence witliout leave, and necessarily includes 
 it; the intention not to retw'n constituting the aggrava- 
 tion. The new British mutiny act and articles of war 
 of 1852, contain a provision that soldiers, tried for 
 desertion, "may thereupon l)e found guilty either of 
 desertion or absence without leave," thus lesT-alizino; 
 what has been the universal practice in that service. 
 
 While a court may convict of a lesser kindred offence, 
 it cannot, under any circumstances, find the accused 
 guilty of a higher degree of criminality than that alleged 
 in the charge. 
 
 The various degrees of culpability must be taken into 
 consideration for every act that may be divided into 
 offences of greater or less magnitude, and the court 
 should confine themselves to the evidence of commission 
 of the crime specified, when deliberating upon the ques- 
 tion of guilt or innocence. Any evidence in mere ^:>a^//- 
 ation or extenuation must be allowed its due effect upon 
 the sentence and not upon the finding. A soldier strik- 
 ing his superior officer being in the execution of his 
 office, must be found guilty of a violation of the 9th 
 article of war — mutiny — and the extenuating circum- 
 stance that he struck under the wild excitement of ex- 
 cessive provocation, can only be considered when decid- 
 ing upon the sentence. 
 
 Tiic inaiaiicr in which an acquittal is expressed^ often 
 varies, and the difterent formula used convey a more or 
 less favorable judgment on the innocence of the accus- 
 ed. Sucli an acquittal as that " the charges are not 
 proved" should never be recorded, as it is calculated to 
 strengthen the imputation engendered by the charge. 
 
134 MILITARY LAW AND COUKTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 and nuiy prove most injurious to tlie accused, especially 
 iu siicli cases as affect the lioiior of an officer. The 
 court is sworn to truly try and determine the matter 
 before them according to the evidence^ and where the 
 evidence does not prove the guilt of the prisoner, he is 
 entitled to an acquittal on that just and reasonable 
 maxim, that in the eye of the law the accused is inno- 
 cent until ])roved to be guilty. 
 
 FrSva53«sus and voxatiou** aecu!«atioiis frrowin"" OUt of 
 
 the personal ill-will and animosity of the accuser, being 
 developed in the course of the trial, have been made 
 the suljject of severe censure hy courts- martial, and their 
 observations have met with the approval of the revising 
 authority. So also has it been declared that the accuser 
 was only actuated by a sense of duty and a sincere re- 
 gard for the benefit of the service, or that his conduct 
 has be,en honorable and impartial; such remarks being 
 called for by the insinuations of the prisoner, unsup- 
 ported by evidence. Such ol^servations for or against 
 the accuser may accompany either an acquittal or con- 
 viction. 
 
 Coui'ts-martial may animadvert on the conduct of wit- 
 nesses, and cases have arisen in the British service where 
 officers have been stricken from the rolls of the army 
 for their conduct as witnesses before a court, "as amply 
 borne out l)y the minutes of their evidence," and in 
 consequence of the serious animadversions passed by the 
 court on such conduct. Courts-martial have sometimes 
 observed, in terms expressly charging perjury or false- 
 hood, on the mode in w^hich witnesses have delivered 
 their testimony ; sometimes they have imi^lied censure, 
 at others praise. They have also observed on the causes 
 
THE FINDING. 135 
 
 wliicli liave led to the trial, implicating the conduct of 
 individuals not before the court, but this should only be 
 resorted to in extreme and particular cases, as it seems 
 opposed to the most obvious principle of justice, that an 
 individual should not ])e censured unheard, unless he 
 purposely keeps out of the way to mthhold evidence 
 which he may be competent to afford.* 
 
 " The question having been raised of the authority 
 of a general court-martial, by proper animadversions, 
 to bring to the notice of the military commander, to 
 whom the proceedings are sent, any conduct of the 
 prosecutor or other military persons, which may be de- 
 veloped before the court in the due course of trial, the 
 general-in-chief thinks it proper to affirm such right in 
 clear cases, as one well settled by the practice of armies 
 and that its judicious exercise tends to promote justice 
 and discipline. "f 
 
 In all such cases of misconduct, it is proj^er that the 
 animadversions of the court should be clear and specific, 
 and in a manner that might be acted upon by the re- 
 ^dsing authority, with a view to bringing the offender 
 T)efore a court-mai-tial for trial. This power of observ. 
 ing upon and censuring any inconsistencies or prevarica- 
 tions of witnesses, must be exercised with regard to mil- 
 itary persons only, who, if the opinions expressed be 
 erroneous, can appeal to superior authority for immedi- 
 ate redress. In the case of civilians so censured, eveiy 
 individual member of the court would be liable to an 
 action for defamation on the part of the person so cen- 
 sm-ed, who could obtain no redress except through pro- 
 cess at law. 
 
 ♦Simmons, p. 257. f G. 0. No. 3, January 27th, 1853. 
 
136 MILITAEY LAW AND COUIITS-MAKTIAL. 
 
 The votc§ on the finding having been received by tlie 
 judge advocate, are submitted to the court. It is not 
 necessary that the opinions be given viva voce^ as the 
 law merely requires that the members " in giving their 
 votes, are to begin ^Y\ih the youngest in commission ;" the 
 evident intent of the article being that the younger mem. 
 bers may not be influenced by the opinions of those more 
 experienced. In important cases, and when deemed es- 
 sential, each member ^^Tites on a slip of paper his name 
 and the opinion guilty, or )iot guilty, or mth such 
 modifications and exceptions as are just. These slips 
 are handed to the judge advocate, who announces the 
 verdict. Should there not be a majority or number 
 suflScient to determine it, the fact is stated, and after 
 farther discussion, another vote is taken, until the find- 
 ing is declared. The mode is followed upon every 
 specification and charge, and it has the advantage of 
 concealing the votes of the individual members until a 
 verdict is adopted, when the opinion of each member is 
 read aloud by the judge advocate. 
 
 The fiiifiiiig thus declared, is the decision of the 
 court. Should the vote upon it not have been unani- 
 mous, the minority are however strictly bound by the 
 decision. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE SENTENCE. 
 
 HAvma in their finding, declared the innocence or 
 guilt of the prisoner, the court then pronounce his 
 acquittal, or proceed to award punishment according to 
 the nature and degree of the offence. 
 
 Piini$«iimeiits. The punishments which courts-martial 
 have the power to award are e\i\Qv 2y6remptory^ that is, 
 specially enjoined by the letter of the Avritten law for a 
 sj)ecified offence; or discretionary^ that is, where the 
 kind is specified but discretion as to quantity is left to 
 the court, or, where neither kind nor quantity being 
 specified, both are left to the discretion of the couii, the 
 same being authorized by the rules and articles of war, 
 or in accordance with the custom of service. For in- 
 stance, the 83d article enacts that " any commissioned 
 officer convicted before a general court-martial of con- 
 duct unl)ecoming an officer and a gentleman, shall be 
 dismissed the service." The act of the court in 2-)assing 
 sentence in such a case, is therefore ministerial rather 
 than judicatory. A majority finds and sentences. 
 
 Where death is the fixed penalty for a crime commit- 
 ted, the finding Q>i fjuilt must be passed l)y a two-thirds 
 vote, because the death penalty which immediately 
 attaches to conviction in this case, requires a two-thirds 
 
138 MILITAPwY LAW AND COUETS-MAKTIAL. 
 
 vote for its infliction. For instance, the 55tli article 
 states that " whosoever, belonging to the armies of the 
 United States in foreign parts, shall force a safeguard, 
 shall suffer death."* Here the court is the mere mouth- 
 piece of the law to pronounce the punishment fixed by 
 it, and therefore the guilt that carries death with it, 
 must be declared by the same voice. 
 
 In most cases, however, the articles of war do not 
 annex a fixed and invariable punishment for oftences, 
 and as courts-martial — except in sentences to sufter 
 death — declare their opinion by a majority of votes, the 
 question arises, how far the minority is houiid hy the 
 findiing of the majority^ when the sentence is to be de- 
 termined % There can be no doubt that the oj^inion of 
 the majority is the opinion of the court, else on an in- 
 terlocutory decision as to the admission of evidence the 
 minority may decline to be influenced by the testimony 
 which, according to their individual judgment, was ir- 
 regularly admitted. Unanimity of opinion in questions 
 of law and fact is a bare possiljility, and such a require- 
 ment would efifectually bar the administration of justice. 
 It must also be considered that a court-martial acts in 
 the twofohl capacity of judge and jury; as judge, to 
 administer justice; as juiy, to truly try and determine 
 according to evidence ; and as the law has nowliere in- 
 trusted this last, or any other, function to a fraction 
 only of the court, the finding of the verdict is the find- 
 ing of the court as a jury, and exhausts theii- powers as 
 jurors. In proceeding to the sentence they act in the 
 capacity of judges, independent of their individual 
 votes as jurors, to award ])unishment equal and adequate 
 
 * See act approved Fcbrbary 13th, 1SG2, section 5. 
 
TUE SENTENCE. 139 
 
 to that degree of guilt declared l)y tlie court, as a jury. 
 In other words, tlie court is to administer justice on a 
 person already convicted. 
 
 The sentence of the court, in cases not discretionary, 
 is in strict accordance with the finding:, and must be in- 
 flicted by the court, in obedience to the law, regardless 
 of individual sympathies or opinions. Here the court, 
 as judge, passes the sentence fixed l>y the law to the 
 crime of which the prisoner has been convicted by the 
 court as jury ; not by a unanimous voice, but at most 
 by a two-thirds vote, the extreme vote required l)y the 
 law. It is therefore the duty of each member to vote 
 on the sentence regardless of the fact, that on the find- 
 ing, his vote was for an acquittal. Each member must 
 not only vote, but must discard all personal sympathies, 
 and act without partiality, favor, or affection ; for were 
 the minority to vote for the most lenient sentence be- 
 cause of their individual belief in his innocence, and re- 
 gardless of the verdict, the punishment awarded might 
 be very disproportionate to the degree of offence, and 
 not in unison with the requirements of justice. 
 
 Simmons cites a case that occurred in India in 1830, 
 and the decision of the commander-in-chief ^vas, that 
 " Upon a finding of guilty by a court-martial, I am of 
 opinion, that although all the members of the coui-t may 
 not have concuiTed in it, it must be deemed the finding 
 of the whole ; and the members who voted for acquittal, 
 may be called upon to vote upon the punishment to be 
 awarded on the prisoner, as if they had concurred in 
 the finding of guilty."* The practice of our service is 
 in accordance with this rule, and may be considered as 
 
 * Page 2G8. 
 
140 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 a positive and certain rule for tlie guidance of courts- 
 martial. 
 
 Votes. If a member should vote for death, which is 
 not earned by two-thii'ds of the court, he must vote 
 some other punishment. All members must vote some 
 legal sentence, and if that which any member votes for 
 is not carried, some punishment must be voted till a 
 majority agree as to one punishment. 
 
 Should the cornet be equally divided as to the nature 
 or quantum of punishment, the practice has been to 
 give the prisoner the benefit of the more lenient judg- 
 ment. This, however, seldom happens, as on the recon- 
 sideration of the question, some member is apt to be 
 found to lean to the side of mercy, and the ultimate 
 opinion of the majority is the decision of the court. 
 
 The court may adjourn from day to day to consider 
 their finding or sentence. This power in a court-martial 
 to take time for deliberation, is of great importance in 
 militaiy trials; enabling the members to consult au- 
 thorities and inform themselves upon questions involv- 
 ing legal proprieties.* 
 
 With regard to the ivonUng of the sentence, no par- 
 ticular form is necessary in cases that are discretionary 
 with the court, except that it be expressed in clear and 
 unaml^iguous language. In peremptory cases the sen- 
 tence should be expressed in the very words of the stat- 
 ute, to obviate all doubt and cavil. 
 
 Capital Puiiishmcnt. The custom of war has, in the 
 absence of statutoiy law to that effect, deteimined that 
 capital punishment be inflicted Ijy shooting or hanging. 
 Mutiny, desertion, or other militaiy crime is commonly 
 
 * Do Hart. p. 19:;. • 
 
THE SENTENCE. 141 
 
 punished by shooting ; a spy is always hanged^ and 
 mutiny accompanied by loss of life is punished in the 
 same manner ; the mode, in all cases, should be declared 
 in the sentence. 
 
 Motives. Where the law has left the sentence dis- 
 cretionaiy with the coui't, allusion may be made to the 
 motives that have actuated it in determining the sen- 
 tence, as for instance; "The court is thus lenient, be- 
 lieving the accused to have acted more from thought- 
 lessness than from any intention of wi^ong." 
 
 In illustration of the above, the following sentences, 
 and decisions thereon, are cited : 
 
 1. The court find the. prisoner ''^ guilty'^'' of tJie specifi- 
 cation to the 1st charge^ and "not guilty" of the 1st 
 charge, and " not guilty" of the 2d charge and its speci- 
 fication, and do sentence him " to forfeit his pay for six 
 months, and to be confined at hard labor during the 
 same period." The proceedings of the court in this case 
 are disappi'oved ; the court, although finding a part of 
 the facts alleged against the prisoner, having acquitted 
 him of both the " charges preferred, proceeded iri'egular- 
 ly in passing sentence upon him."* 
 
 2. The attention of courts-martial is directed to so 
 much of the 18th section of the act of March 16th, 1802, 
 as provides, that a deserter shall be " liable to serve, for, 
 and during such a period, as shall with the time he may 
 have served previous to his desertion, amount to the 
 full term of his enlistment." This provision not being 
 positive, it is necessary .to embody in the sentence of 
 the court, in every case of the conviction of a deserter, 
 that he shall make good the time lost by his absence 
 
 * G. 0. No. G9. Ilead-Quartcrs of tlio army, Dec. 30tli, 1843. 
 
142 .MILITARY LAW AIsT) COUKTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 from the service — if such be the intention of the coilft * 
 By the general regulations, in reckoning the time of ser- 
 vice, the deserter is to be considered in service when 
 delivered up as such to the j^roj^er authority. 
 
 3. As doubts have arisen in regard to the 2:)unishment 
 which a court-martial may inflict under the 45th article 
 of war, on non-commissioned officers and soldiers, it is 
 deemed advisal)le not to charge offences under that arti- 
 cle, but under the 99th article. 
 
 Courts-martial, except in cases which may arise under 
 the 32 d article of war, have not authority to find a ver- 
 dict of debt against a soldier, and to direct, by their 
 sentence, the pajTuent of debts to sutlers or other per- 
 sons. They may, if they see fit, in order not to deprive 
 a soldier of the means of discharging honestly his proper 
 pecuniary obligations, ascertain the amount due from 
 him to the sutler and laundress, and except that amount, 
 as a sum stated^ from the fine or forfeiture imposed in 
 the sentence; but such amount so excepted, must be 
 paid to the soldier, and the court cannot direct its pay- 
 ment to any other person.f 
 
 A court-martial cannot assign and make over the j^ay 
 of a soldier to any other person, and the receipt of such 
 person will not be a sufficient voucher for the dislnirs- 
 ing officer. Nor can a soldier be required to receipt for 
 money i)aid without his consent to another jDerson. The 
 law jDrohibits any receipt or voucher in accounts of 
 public money, unless the full amount of the receij^t is 
 paid to the person who signs it. J 
 
 * G. 0. No. 45, Head-Quarters of the army, July 15th, 1843. 
 f G. 0. No. 51, Head-Quarters of the army, April 3d, 1851. 
 X G. 0. No. 2, War Department. Feb. 28th, 1857. 
 
TIIE SENTENCE. 143 
 
 Record. Every court-inartiMl shall keep a complete 
 and accurate record of its proceedings, to be autlieuti- 
 cated by the signatures of the president and judge advo- 
 cate ; who shall also certify, in like manner, the sentence 
 pronounced by the court in each case. When the sen- 
 tence is, therefore, entered upon the record, it is signed 
 by the president and judge advocate. 
 
 ifiodiSyiii^ iiic Sentence. At any time previous to theii" 
 final adjournment, the court are competent to modify or 
 change the sentence already passed by them. 
 
 In the case of Peter Williamson, tried in June, 1819, 
 for desertion, and to which he pleaded guilty, the court 
 sentenced him to "confinement at hard labor with a 
 ball and chain, <fec. ;" but on the ensuing day, at the sug- 
 gestion of a member, the sentence was reconsidered, and 
 after due deliberation the court substituted the follow- 
 ing : " That he, the said Peter AVilliamson, be shot to 
 death." The question was submitted to the attorney- 
 general, whether the court had the power to change the 
 sentence, as above stated ? 
 
 " In courts of civil jurisdiction, when sitting even in 
 ciiminal cases, the court is not concluded by an opinion 
 they may have expressed in any one day, but has the 
 power to reconsider, the whole subject being completely 
 within its control until the end of the term. And I am 
 not apprised of any difference in the powers of the two 
 courts over the subjects which severally belong to them 
 during the continuance of their respective terms. If a 
 civil court of criminal jurisdiction, therefore, may law- 
 fully reconsider and alter during the teiiu, any opinion 
 which it may have pronounced on a previous day of the 
 same term ; so, in like manner, I conceive may a court- 
 
144 MILITARY LAW AXD COURTS-MAKTIAL. 
 
 martial. * * * ^ general court-martial convened 
 for general purposes, continues a court with full powers 
 while it has any business to do, of which it alone is the 
 judge ; and while it does so continue a court, its power 
 of judicial deliberation and decision over all the subjects 
 which may have been brought before it is as fidl on the 
 last day of its sittings as on any preceding day. I am 
 of the opinion that the court had the power to alter the 
 opinion they had expressed on the preceding day, and 
 that their final opinion is regularly and legally pro- 
 nounced.'-* 
 
 The alcove opinion covers the case where the coui-t, 
 with the same members, made both decisions. There 
 seem to be doubts entertained wlietlier tills power is 
 vested in a miitilated court. " However it may be as- 
 serted that the usage and laws of coui*ts-mai*tial, may 
 sanction the right of the court to annul and entirely 
 change their j^ositive decision at any time before their 
 final adjournment, yet it is a right which should be 
 cautiously exercised, and only on obvious and extraor- 
 dinary occasions. In the present instance, a full coui't 
 acquitted the prisoner ; and upon the next day a muti- 
 lated court — one member being absent — undertake to 
 rescind the judgment of the previous day, and to pro- 
 nounce the accused guilty and sentence him to punish- 
 ment. To justify such a reversal, the coui-t should l)e 
 as fidl, and constituted precisely as it was, ^vhen the first 
 judgment was pronounced. In consequence of this 
 irregular it}', the proceedings of the court are disap- 
 proved."f 
 
 * Opinions, Aug. 29th, 1819. 
 
 f G. 0. Xo. 40, War Department Oct. 14tli, 1844. 
 
THE SENTENCE. 145 
 
 Tliis view of tlie case is not, however, upheld by a 
 recent opinion of the attorney-general, in which it was 
 decided, that the absence of members, on the reassem- 
 bling of the court by the proper authority for the revis- 
 ion of the original proceedings, did not invalidate its 
 final action, provided always that the number reassem- 
 bled did not fall below the minimum fixed by law.* 
 
 Recommendation. Should one or more. members see 
 fit to recommend the prisoner to mercy, because mitiga- 
 ting circumstances have appeared during the trial which 
 could not be taken into consideration in determining 
 the degree of guilt, or the extent of punishment, their 
 recommendation will not be embraced in the body of 
 the sentence. It is provided by regulation that those 
 meml)ers only who concur in the recommendation will 
 sign it. They should carefully avoid pointing out any 
 particular mode in which the prisoner may be deem- 
 ed worthy the clemency of the reviewing authority. 
 
 The recommendation, not heing an act of the court., 
 but the mere expression of the wish-es and opinions of 
 the indi^^duals who sign it, must not be entered as part 
 of the proceedings, but be appended to them. It does 
 not of necessity indicate the votes, uj)on the finding or 
 sentence of the subscribing members, but has the ef- 
 fect of directing the attention of the reviewing author- 
 ity to those parts of the evidence that tend to mitigate 
 the gravity of the offence. 
 
 * Opinions, July 12th, 1855. 
 10 
 
CHAPTEE XIII. 
 
 EEVISION AND CONFIEMATION OF SEN- 
 TENCE. 
 
 By tlie ^Uh article of wai\ it is prescribed that " no 
 sentence of a court-martial shall be carried into execu- 
 tion until after the whole proceedings shall have been 
 laid before the officer ordering the same, or the officer 
 commanding the troops for the time being ; neither 
 shall any sentence of a general court-martial," <fec.* 
 
 Revision. There is no special authority given to re- 
 mit the proceedings back to a court-martial for reconsid- 
 eration or re^dsion, unless it be implied in the above- 
 quoted article, in the words "for his confirmation, or 
 disapproval and orders in the case^ But this power 
 seems to flow directly from the very constitution of 
 courts, as a consequence of the right of confirming and 
 disapproving the sentence ; it has been fixed by the cus- 
 tom of war, in the absence of special legislation, and is 
 now the established practice in our service. 
 
 In the British service, the mutiny act of 1750 pro- 
 hibits the approving authority from sending back the 
 case for revision more than once. Although there is no 
 such restriction in our rules and articles, the belief has 
 been expressed by high legal authority, that this power 
 
 ♦See act approved December 24th, 1861. 
 
REVISION AND CONFIRMATION. 147 
 
 is under the same limitation as in Great Britain, and l)y 
 equally liigli authority, that in our service the proceed- 
 ings may be remanded as often as the superior author- 
 ity shall deem necessary for attaining the purposes of 
 justice. A single revision would seem to be ample and 
 sufficient to meet the ends of justice ; its object being 
 to permit the court to reconsider their action ^vith the 
 aid of the new light thrown upon the case by the re- 
 marks of the revie'wdng authority. 
 
 Xone other than the approving authority has the 
 right to send back the proceedings for re^asion, nor can 
 this be done in any case, after the court has been dis- 
 solved by this same authority. 
 
 Proceedings. No witness shall be examined, nor ad- 
 ditional evidence received by a court-martial on revision. 
 The court does not rehear the case, but confines itself 
 exclusively to a reconsideration of the record for the 
 pui'pose of coiTecting or modifying any conclusions 
 thereon, and weighing with impartiality the suggestions 
 made by the reviewing authority. The court cannot 
 alter or obliterate any part of their previous proceed- 
 ings, or expunge from the record any testimony, al- 
 though illegally admitted. The proceedings of the 
 court during the reconsideration, together with the writ- 
 ten instructions from the approving power, must be 
 made up separate and distinct, and appended to the 
 ])revi()us record, leaving the latter perfectly intact. 
 
 €auMC!4. The principal cause for requiring courts- 
 martial to revise their judgments is, where an insuffi- 
 cient or undue weight has been given to the testimony, 
 and is supposed to have arisen from inadvertence, mis- 
 conception of the law, or the custom of war ; or where 
 
148 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 an exorbitant, inadequate, or illegal punisliment lias 
 been awarded.* Any illegality as to the constitution 
 of the court, or any defect in its composition, cannot be 
 amended on revision ; neither can any illegality as to 
 the charge be remedied. Such flaws must of necessity 
 invalidate the proceedings to such a degree as to render 
 any sentence or finding entii'ely innoxious to the accus- 
 ed, and so entirely annihilates the court as to expose 
 him to trial by another coui't. 
 
 New Trial. If the court be a legal court of competent 
 jurisdiction, and act illegally, the prisoner cannot be 
 again tried except on his owti motion for a new trial. 
 If it be an illegal court, all its proceedings are null and 
 void ab initio^ and there thus being no trial, the accused 
 may be brought before a proper court to be tried. If 
 the court be a legal court but without competent juris- 
 diction, a trial by such a court is not a valid plea in bar 
 of trial before a legal court of competent jurisdiction. As, 
 for instance, taking an extreme case, the trial of a commis- 
 sioned officer by a regimental or garrison court would 
 not be considered a good plea in bar. The 67th article 
 states that "No garrison or regimental court-martial 
 shall have the power to tiy capital cases or commis- 
 sioned officers." Yet the trial of an officer by such in- 
 ferior com-t, is a trial by an intrinsically legal court, 
 tnie, but having no jurisdiction over such individuals, 
 its action is as void as if cognizance of a military offence 
 was taken by an ecclesiastical court. An inferior court 
 has no law^il cognizance where the trial of an officer 
 is concerned, and its action is null and void from its 
 very inception. 
 
 * De Hart, p. 205. 
 
KEVISION AND CONFIRMATION. 149 
 
 A new trial may also be granted, when tlie finding 
 of a court-martial is founded on irrelevant matter^ or is 
 not supported hy^ or is contrary to the recorded ttstimony. 
 In the case of Captain Hall, tried by a general court- 
 martial in 1818, and sentenced to be cashiered, which 
 sentence was disa])23roved, an appeal was made by the 
 prisoner to the President, on the ground that the coiui: 
 had excluded certain evidence that was both legal and 
 material for the defence. The new court ordered for 
 his trial, refused to arraign the accused, because he had 
 been previously tried by a court-martial on the same 
 charge, and that a new trial was forbidden by the 87th 
 article of war. The question then arose as to the power 
 of the President to grant a new trial, and the attorney- 
 general, Mr. Wirt, gave an elaborate and conclusive 
 opinion thereon. 
 
 "It is very apparent that the whole of article 87 is 
 designed for the henefit of the j^arty accused, not for his 
 prejudice. The President of the United States has the 
 power to order a ne^V' trial for the benefit of the prison- 
 er. The sentence of a court-martial in case of death or 
 dismission, is not perfected until it shall have received 
 the approbation of the President. His ai)pr(>bation is 
 necessary to consummate the measure, and his disa])])roval 
 annihilates the sentence; the case stands as if there had 
 been no trial, and is just as open to an order for a 
 court-martial, as it was in the fii'st instance. " * * 
 The plea is his (the prisoner's) 7;/'^v^7<?y(?, which he may 
 either use or waive at his pleasure; and if he docs not 
 use it, however the fact may be, the court will not take 
 notice of it so as to bar the trial. In the present in- 
 stance, the pi-isoner expressly waived the plea and in- 
 
150 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 sisted upon liis trial. The previous trial, therefore, was 
 not in issue before the coui't."* 
 
 ITIutilatcd Court assembled for Revision. WTien a 
 court-martial has lawfully reassem1)le(I for revision, 
 some of its members being absent, but a legal quorum 
 of the court present, the question has arisen, ^vhether it 
 was com23etent to go on as the same court which has 
 passed the original sentence, and to revise or modify it 
 on a reconsideration of the record ? The opinion of 
 Attorney-General Gushing on this point is, that the ab- 
 sence of the members at the reassembling of the court, 
 did not impair its jurisdiction, or otherwise injuriously 
 affect the legality of its action ; and that it still remained 
 the same continuous and competent court as when it 
 first asseml)led under the orders of the department. He 
 grounds this opinion on the analogy that exists between 
 courts-martial and juries, the appointing j^ower having 
 something of the same relation to the former, that the 
 judge at nisi prius has to the latter; that the grand 
 jury has always consisted of members changeable in 
 numbers and personality within certain limits, acting 
 only l:)y a quorum vote, without necessary unanimity ; 
 and that it is no inherent necessity which forbids a 
 traverse jury to undergo personal change in the course 
 of a trial, but merely the arljitrary discretion of the law- 
 making power. He also refers to the fact that no law 
 or regulation requires all the members of the court, who 
 participated in the original proceedings, to continue 
 present until the time of their conclusion ; and that the 
 members who reassembled would have been competent 
 to try the case when originally submitted.f However 
 
 * Opinions, Sept. 14tli. 1818. f Opinions, July 12th, 1855. 
 
REVISIOX AND CONFIRMATION. 151 
 
 just and proper this may l)e in law and equity, revision 
 by a mutilated court should not 1)e encouraged in prac- 
 tice. Taking an extreme case; an original court of 
 thirteen members might be reduced by unavoidable 
 circumstances to the minimum of five for revision, and 
 the action of this minority might l)y its revised decision 
 annul and u})set the matui'ed and decided action of the 
 majority. Such a case would carry Avith it so palpable 
 an aj^j^earance of injustice, as to effect more detriment to 
 the service ])y its silent oj^eration, than would be com- 
 pensated by the individual justice it might have adminis- 
 tered. Whatever tends, in the slightest degree, to cast a 
 sha(lo\v uj)on the unsullied purity of our military tribu- 
 nals, should l)e avoided Avitli all the care commensurate 
 with the strict and impartial administration of justice. 
 
 Conririnatioii. The duties of the reviemng officer 
 are distinctly set forth in the Goth article of war, and 
 accordingly no sentence can be carried into execution 
 until after "the whole proceedings" shall have l)een ])y 
 him " conjirmedy This con&mation is usually affixed, 
 with his signature, to the proceedings, and the decision 
 is published in orders. Should the proceedings of the 
 court be " dUa/pproved^'' by him, he may reconvene the 
 court for revision, or release the prisoner from arrest, and 
 order him to duty. Minor errors would be noticed, and 
 might modify the action of the reviewing authority, but 
 not necessarily lead to a disapproval of the entire record. 
 If the sentence be too severe, or, on the other hand, too 
 inadequate, for the offence of Avhich the accused stands 
 convicted, the same authority might use his discretion 
 in either sending the proceedings back for revisal, miti- 
 gating, remitting, or confirming the sentence. 
 
152 3IILITAKY LAW A^^D COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 When, upon re\'ision, courts-martial adhere to the 
 judgment first j)ronounced, this adherence is accompa- 
 nied by a statement of their reasons for so doing. In 
 such cases, the reviewing authority may confirm the 
 proceedings, should nothing illegal therein prevent, that 
 the convict may not go impunished ; or may remit, or 
 mitigate the same, at his discretion. 
 
 Provocation^ according to its kind and degree, and 
 the nature of the act committed in consequence of it, 
 may justify or excuse that act. Extenuating circum- 
 stances may be proj^erly considered by the approving 
 authority, and indeed, it is the right of the accused that 
 all the circumstances of his case should be re^newed by 
 that authority which decides finally upon it. 
 
 initigation of Puiiiisiiincut. By the 89th article of 
 war, " every ofiieer authorized to order a general coiu't- 
 martial, shall have power to pardon or mitigate any 
 punishment ordered by such coui't, except the sentence 
 of death, or of cashiering an officer ; which, in the cases 
 where he has authority (by article 05) to carry them 
 into execution, he may suspend, until the pleasure of 
 the President of United States can be known ; which 
 suspension, together with copies of the proceedings of 
 the court-martial, the said officer shall immediately 
 transmit to the President for his determination. And 
 the colonel or commanding officer of the regiment or 
 garrison, where any regimental or gamson court -martial 
 shall be held, may pardon or mitigate any punishment 
 ordered by such court to be inflicted."* 
 
 The power is hereby expressly given to every officer, 
 authorized to order a general court-martial, to pardon 
 
 * See act approved Dec. 2-lth, 1S61. 
 
 i 
 
EEVISION AND CONFIEMATION. 153 
 
 and mitigate any punishment ordered by such court, 
 except the sentence of death, or of cashiering of an offi- 
 'jer; these can only be pardoned or mitigated l)y the 
 President of the United States. 
 
 In the case of Major Whistler, the following opinion 
 was given by the attorney-general: "In those cases 
 which, l)y the rules and articles of war, are required to 
 be submitted to him, the whole proceedings are required 
 to be transmitted to the secretary of war, to be laid be- 
 fore the President ' for his confirmation or disapproval, 
 and orders in the case.' The terms indicate an unlimit- 
 ed discretion ; and when it is considered, that he is, by 
 the constitution, the depositary of the pardoning power 
 — that this is coextensive with every species of punish- 
 ment, except only in cases of impeachment — it cannot, I 
 think, ])e doubted that he has authority to mitigate as 
 well as to confirm or I'eject the sentence of a general 
 court-martial, in the exercise of the supervisory power 
 committed to him by the act for establishing the rules 
 and articles, for the government of the armies of the 
 United States. It would be sinsjular if, in the cases 
 which are intrusted to the supervision of a subordinate 
 officer (see 89th article of war), a power should be 
 given to him over the sentence of a court-martial, which 
 is denied to the commander-in-chief, in those cases which 
 are referred to him."* 
 
 The power to pardon all offences against the United 
 States, except in cases of impeachment, is given to the 
 President, by the constitution; and his constitutional 
 power to grant a conditional pardon, ofiering to com- 
 mute the sentence of deatli to that of im2)risonment for 
 
 * Opinions, Nov. 3d, 1829. 
 
154 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 life, is affirmed by the Supreme Coui't * And Attorney- 
 General Crittenden, in the case of an Indian sentenced 
 to be hung for murder, says: "The general power of 
 pardoning conferred by the constitution upon the Presi- 
 dent, includes the power of pardoning conditionally, or 
 of commuting to a milder punishment that which has 
 been adjudged against the offender. The commutation 
 of the punishment is but a conditional pardon; and 
 that the President may grant such a conditional pardon 
 has been always recognized and decided."f 
 
 The question, then, whicli has arisen denying to the 
 President the power of commuting^ because under the 
 above-quoted article of war, the word " mitigate " is only 
 used, which does not include ^'- commute^'^ necessarily 
 falls to the ground, as the SujM'eme Court, the sole judge 
 of the constitutionality of laws and acts, has affirmed tTiis 
 as flowing directly from the pardoning power, and what 
 is granted by, or implied in, the constitution cannot be 
 annulled by express laws, much less by mere inference, 
 as abovCo 
 
 To mitigate a punishment, is to make it less in degree, 
 preserving the same species. To commute^ is to substi- 
 tute a punishment of a different species. There are 
 only two kinds of punishments recognized and author- 
 ized by our military laws, which admit of no degrees of 
 severity : — they are, death and cashiering, or dismission ; 
 but when such a sentence is adjudged by a court-martial, 
 its pardon or mitigation is placed, exclusively, in the 
 hands of the President. All other sentences can be par- 
 doned or mitigated by the officer ordering the court, but 
 
 * Ex parte, Wells, 18 Howard U. S., p. 307. 
 
 \ Opinions, May 10th, 1851. (U. S. vs. Wilson, 7 Peters, p. 158.) 
 
EEVISION AND CONFIRM ATION. 155 
 
 admitting as tliey do of different degrees of severity, 
 tliere arises no difficulty in regard to their mitigation, as 
 this power can be exercised by lessening tlie quantity 
 without changing the species. 
 
 But the po^ver to co))i)nute is held to be included in that 
 of mitigation. In the case of private William Barnsman, 
 of the marine corps, who was sentenced to suifer death, 
 the question, whether the President coidd change that 
 sentence into one of ^' service and restraint for the space of 
 one year, etc.," w^as sul^mitted to Mr. Wirt, attorney-gen- 
 eral. " The power oi ixirdoning the offence^ does not, in 
 my opinion, include the power of changing the punish- 
 ment, but the 2)ower to mitigate cannot be fairly under- 
 stood in any other sense than as meaning a power to sub- 
 stitute a milder pimishment in the place of that decreed 
 1 »y the court-martial. The only doubt that occurs to me 
 as possible in regard to this construction, is, whether the 
 power of mitigating a punishment includes the power 
 of changing its species ; whether it means any thing 
 more than lessening the quantity, preserving neverthe- 
 less, the species of the ijunlshinent. A sentence of death 
 cannot be mitigated in any other way than by changing 
 the i)unishment. To deny him the exercise of this 
 })ower in such a case, and to throw him on his own 
 power of entii'e pardon, would be to compel him to ex- 
 tend the greatest mercy to those who had deserved it 
 least ; for w^hile it is true that sentences of death are 
 those which appeal most strongly to mercy, because 
 they deal in blood, it is no less true that they are pre- 
 cisely those which are least worthy of an entire pardon, 
 l)ecause they are pronounced only in cases of enormity. 
 In other words, they are those in which the power of 
 
156 MILITARY LAW AND C0URTS-:MAETIAL. 
 
 mitigation applies with peculiar propriety. I think, 
 therefore, that the President has the right to mitigate 
 the sentence of death ; and that every argument for the 
 exercise of the power in inferior cases, applies a fortiori 
 to such a sentence. And since a sentence of death can 
 be mitigated only by changing it, my opinion is, that 
 the President has the power, in the case of William 
 Barnsman, to substitute the milder punishment which 
 he contemplates."* 
 
 In the case of an officer of the na^-y who was sen- 
 tenced by a court-martial to be dismissed the service, 
 the President's power to mitigate the punishment, is up- 
 held by the opinion of the attorney-general. " In any 
 aspect of the case, I cannot doubt the power of the 
 President to mitigate a sentence of dismission, by com- 
 muting it into a suspension for a term of years without 
 pay. A dismission is a perpetual suspension without 
 pay, and the limited suspension without pay is the in- 
 ferior degree of the same punishment. According to 
 the strictest authorities, I am satisfied that limited sus- 
 pension, with the suspension of pay and emoluments, is 
 a legal mitigation of a sentence of dismission fi*om the 
 service."f 
 
 In a subsequent opinion, the following is the language 
 of the same attorney-general, Mr. Mason : " When an 
 officer is brought to trial, and is sentenced to be pun- 
 ished, the executive may mitigate the severity of that 
 punishment, but there is a guide — the discretion is a 
 legal discretion, and the mitigation must not be accord- 
 ing to a capricious will, but must havt- the sanction of 
 the judgment of the court. It must inflict a part of the 
 
 * Opinions. January 4tb, 1820. f Opinions, September 18th, 1845. 
 
EE VISION AND CONFIRMATION. 157 
 
 punishment awarded by tlie judgment of the couii:, with 
 the exception of those cases in which there is no degree, 
 as where the whole punishment must be inflicted, or no 
 part of it can be. Such is the case with a sentence of 
 death."* 
 
 In the case of Captain Ramsay of the Navy, who was, 
 in 1S43, sentenced by a general court-martial "to be 
 suspended ft-om all I'ank and command in the navj of 
 the United States, for and during the period of five 
 years," the President ordered that the sentence be " com- 
 muted to suspension for six months without iKiy^ In 
 reviewing the case, the attorney-general says, that "It 
 does not appear that the commutation of the sentence 
 was made at Captain R.'s request; or that the con- 
 dition was accej^ted by him. The act of Congress 
 has made a suspension of pay a punishment to be in- 
 flicted, or not, in a single class of cases, at the discretion 
 of the coui't.f The executive has no power while an 
 officer retains his commission, and is not sentenced by a 
 court-martial to that effect, to take from him the pay 
 which the law gives him. I am constrained to the 
 opinion, therefore, that Captain R. is entitled to pay, 
 during the period mentioned in the 4th auditor's let- 
 ter, notwithstanding the terms in which the President 
 commuted his sentence." J 
 
 The weight of opinion is, therefore, in favor of the 
 power of the President to commute under the authority 
 given by law to mitigate; provided it be mitigation, 
 and add nothing ; and as this has also been affii'med by 
 the Supreme Com-t as constitutional, and as flowing from 
 
 * Opinions, October 16tb, 1845. f Sec Slth article of war. 
 
 X Opinion, October IGtli, 1845. 
 
158 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 the pardoning power, the question is set at rest and is 
 no longer open for discussion. 
 
 The Sdth artide prohi])its "every officer" from par- 
 doning or mitigating the sentence of death or of cashier- 
 ing an officer. In time of ivar such a sentence can be 
 carried into execution by the officer ordering the court- 
 martial, except in the case of a general officer,* Ijut the 
 power of pardon and mitigation is left exclusively to the 
 President. 
 
 In the case of Lieutenant Devlin of the Marines, on 
 service with the army in Mexico, who was sentenced by 
 a general court-martial, to be cashiered, the general-in- 
 chief, after approving the sentence, directed that it 
 should be commuted to twelve months' suspension from 
 rank, command, and emoluments; without submitting 
 the proceedings and his orders thereon, for the action of 
 the President of the United States. The question as to 
 the legality of the order of the general-in-ehief, com- 
 muting the punishment, was submitted to the attorney- 
 general. 
 
 " By the 65th article, the general-in-chief had the full 
 power to confirm the sentence of cashiering against Lieu- 
 tenant D. But he had no power whatever to pardon 
 or mitigate the sentence, the 89th article expressly 
 excepting the cashiering of an officer from his power to 
 pardon or mitigate. All the authority he had was, to 
 suspend the canying the sentence into execution until 
 the pleasure of the President could be knowoi. Tlie 
 article is express, that, in the cases where the general-in- 
 chief has authority to carry into execution such a sen- 
 tence, to wit, in time of war, he shall not pardon or 
 
 * See 65th article of war, and act approved Dec. 2-ith, 1861. 
 
REVISION AND CONFIRMATION. 159 
 
 mitigate, but may suspend execution and make report 
 to the President."* 
 
 Final Action on the Proceedings. The proceedings 
 of a court-martial having been finally disposed of by the 
 officer ordering the court to assemble, or the command- 
 ing officer for the time being, are not liable to be re- 
 viewed by any other authority short of the President of 
 the United States. A superior military commander to 
 the officer confirming the proceedings may suspend the 
 execution of the sentence when, in his judgment, it is 
 void on the face of the proceedings, or when he sees a 
 fit case for executive clemency. But such militaiy com- 
 mander is not invested by law with power to annul or 
 pardon the sentence. As a legal judgment it so stands 
 till vacated in due course of law. In such cases, the 
 record, with his orders prohibiting the execution of the 
 sentence, shall be transmitted for the final orders of the 
 President. This salutary check on the action of the re- 
 viewing authority is made practicable by the regula- 
 tions requiring all proceedings of the inferior courts to 
 be transmitted Avithout delay to the department head- 
 quarters; and the original proceedings of all general 
 courts-martial after decision thereon of the reviemng 
 autliorit}', and copies of all orders confirming, or disap- 
 l^roving, or remitting the sentences of courts-martial, to 
 be transmitted to the judge advocate of the army at the 
 War Department.! 
 
 There is no court in which an appeal can be taken 
 against the sentence of a court-martial, or in which it 
 may be revised, with the single exception of the right 
 of appeal from the judgment of a regimental to a gen- 
 
 * Opmions, September 20tli, 1853. f G. R., p. 126. 
 
160 MILITAEY LAW AND COUKTS-ilARTIAL. 
 
 eral court-martial, as provided by tlie 35tli article of 
 war. 
 
 Tlie successor to an officer ordering a court-martial is 
 empowered to act on its proceedings, confirming or dis- 
 approving them. He may also pardon or mitigate a 
 sentence confirmed by Lis predecessor, but cannot re\^ew 
 or annul liis decision, nor arraign its propriety, or im- 
 pugn the motives that induced it. That decision is final, 
 and closes the trial, and the only remedy lies in the 
 power of pardon or mitigation. As bearing on this 
 point we quote the foUo^^ing : " The office and powers of 
 the President are perpetual and every successor has all 
 the powers which his predecessors had whilst in office. 
 But this must be understood of matters executory, of 
 things to be done, and not in relation to matters execut- 
 ed, rightfully and legally transacted. A decision made 
 and executed under one President, is not liable to be 
 reviewed and annulled under the administration of an- 
 other." 
 
 Remission. "WTiere an officer is suffering; under a 
 sentence of suspension from rank and pay, any order 
 for duty and command according to his rank, issued by 
 authority competent to pardon, is a remission of the un- 
 expired portion of the sentence. In 1851, an officer of 
 the navy was, by a court-martial, sentenced to be dis- 
 missed the service, which sentence was mitigated, by 
 the President, to suspension from service and pay, for 
 the term of twelve months. During said term of sus- 
 pension, he was ordered by the secretary of the nav^^ 
 " to attend as a witness before a court of inquiry." The 
 lieutenant claimed this as a constructive pardon of the 
 entii'e sentence. Mr. Attorney- General Gushing denied 
 
EEVISION AND CONFIRMATION. 161 
 
 this claim, but stated tliat if the lieutenant " had been 
 ordered on duty and command as a lieutenant, that 
 would have been an express remission, not of the whole 
 sentence, but of the unexecuted residue of the sen- 
 tence."* 
 
 Record Preserved. The original proceedings and 
 sentence of a general court-martial, shall be carefully 
 kept and preserved in the office of the secretary of war, 
 to the end that the persons entitled thereto may be 
 enabled, upon application, to obtain copies thereof. 
 The party tried by any general court-martial shall, upon 
 demand thereof, made by himself, or by any person or 
 persons in his behalf, be entitled to a copy of the sen- 
 tence and proceedings of such court-martial.f 
 
 In this place it will be well to notice an important 
 question, which has been largely discussed by De Hart 
 in his work on courts-martial, and whose opinions find 
 able advocacy in the views of the late general-in-chief 
 of the army. The question is. Has the President of the 
 United States the right to Dismss/rc»w the service^ with- 
 out TRIAL, A coiiMissiONED OFFICER of the army or navy. 
 For arjTuments in denial of this rioht, we refer to the 
 work of De Hart, and will confine ourselves to extracts 
 from the opinions of high legal authority, delivered 
 since its publication, in support of that right. 
 
 " The authority of the President in this respect (the 
 i-emoval of civil officers), was sustained in the debate of 
 1789 upon the ground that 'it resulted from the nature 
 of the power, and the convenience and even necessity of 
 its exercise ; that it was clearly in its nature a part of 
 the executive power, and was indispensable for a due 
 
 * Opimons, September 12th, 185-4. f 90th article of war. 
 
 11 
 
162 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAKTIAL. 
 
 execution of the laws, and a regular administration of 
 tlie puljlic affairs.' This doctrine has since been ex- 
 pressly sanctioned by the unanimous sanction of the 
 Supreme Court ; j^lacing it, however, more distinctly on 
 the ground that, as a necessaiy rule, ' the power of re- 
 moval is an incident of the j^ower of appointment.' If 
 there is any foundation in the constitution for any dis- 
 tinction in the tenure of civil and military office, it is 
 remarkaljle that it should have been overlooked in the 
 searching and comprehensive discussion of 1789. On 
 the contrary, it was maintained that the power of re- 
 moval extended to every officer of the government 
 except the judiciary."* 
 
 And Attorney- General Gushing, December 10th, 
 1856, says: "As a question of law, and upon mere legal 
 authorities, it must be taken as a point adjudged. So 
 it is in the practice of the government. The power has 
 l)een exercised in many cases with approbation, express 
 or implied, of the Senate, and without challenge by any 
 legislative act of Congress. In regard to officers of the 
 army and navy, there is no specific provision in the con- 
 stitution, of any sort. In regard to the appointment of 
 the officers of the army and navy there is no general act 
 of Congress. It stands, of course, upon the constitu- 
 tional provision, that the President ' shall nominate and, 
 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall 
 appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and con- 
 suls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers 
 of the United States, w^hose appointments are not herein 
 otherwise pro^dded for, and which shall be established 
 by law.' 
 
 * Opinion Attornc,v-Gencral Clifford, July Uth, 1847. 
 
KEVISIOTs^ AND CONFIRMATION. 163 
 
 " Now, in regard to civil officers, tlie construction of 
 tlie constitution was fixed, as all admit, past change, on 
 occasion of tlie debates in the first Congress. And the 
 established practice of the government on this point has 
 l)assed into the state of equally estal)lislied constitution- 
 al doctrine. The power to remove is inherent in the 
 executive power to nominate. 
 
 " It is true the constitution contemplates the organiza- 
 tion by Congress of a special forum for the trial of mili- 
 tary officers ; and officers of the army and na^^" may be 
 dismissed l^y sentence of courts-martial. But that sen- 
 tence must be aj)proved by the President, in order to 
 take effect ; and even after such approval the party 
 ma}' be pardoned by the President. In these particu- 
 lars the executive power of appointment and removal 
 continues to be recognized by implication. It is not 
 otherwise with civil officers. They are all subject to 
 trial by a special forum, the Senate of the United States, 
 whose judgment extends, by expression, not only to re- 
 moval from office, but also to future disqualification, 
 and is beyond the power of pardon. Surely, if the 
 existence of a special statute forum for military officers 
 be objection to the power of removal by the President 
 in their case, still more so is the existence of the special 
 constitutional forum in the case of civil officers. 
 
 " There are considerations of expediency, which have 
 contributed to give greater practical permanency to mil- 
 itary than to civil commissions. But these considera- 
 tions cannot operate to change the signification of the 
 constitution." 
 
 By the Wth article of wai\ it is enacted, that no dis- 
 charge shall be given to a non-commissioned officer or 
 
164 MILITAEY LAW AND C0UETS-3IAETIAL. 
 
 soldier before his term of serHce has expired, but by 
 order of the President, the secretary of war, the com- 
 manding officer of a department, or the sentence of a 
 general court-martial ; nor shall a commissioned officer 
 be discharged the service but by order of the President 
 of the United States, or by sentence of a general court- 
 martial. 
 
 It is certain that " hy order of the President^'' applies 
 as strictly to commissioned officers, as to non-commission- 
 ed officers and soldiers within the term of theu* enlist- 
 ment. And yet, the constant practice of the army, 
 sanctioned by regulation, is, to dismiss soldiers from the 
 service with a " discharge in wiiting" on the application 
 of their commanders, and without trial. As no excep- 
 tion has ever been taken to such procedure, under this 
 article, the conclusion seems irresistible, that, under this 
 same article, a commissioned officer may be dismissed 
 or " discharged" by order of the President, and ^^-ithout 
 a trial. 
 
 Much might be said on the ground of ex[:)ediency, in 
 opposition to the rule and practice in this regard, but 
 we will only remark, that the power of the President to 
 remove officers from the army at his pleasure, might 
 some day prove of greater danger to the liberties of the 
 people, than the simple fact of keeping up a standing 
 army. The right of appointing to office during the re- 
 cess of the Senate, said appointments to hold until the 
 end of the next session of Congress, gives to an unsci-u- 
 pulous executive a fearful power. The selection of po- 
 litical tools, to hold such i:>ositions for many months, 
 would suffice, under cii'cumstances of great extremity, 
 to work out direst evils to the republic. Such a power 
 
KEVISION AND CONFIR:\[ATrON. 165 
 
 over an army cannot be too well guarded l)y all the 
 checks which an enlightened judgment can impose, and 
 as an evil, is more to be dreaded than the perpetual 
 tenure of officers' commissions, subject as they are to 
 the close supervision of military tribunals. 
 
CHAPTER XIY. 
 
 EXECUTION OF SENTENCE. 
 
 Mode. With regard to tlie mode of carrjnng the sen- 
 tence into execution, it may be observed, that as one 
 great end of punishment is the prevention of crime l)y 
 example, it should be rendered, in this respect, as exten- 
 sively useful as possible, by the publicity whicli attends 
 its execution. Capital punishment, for instance, sliould 
 be carried into effect in the presence of all the troops, 
 or of such portion of the command as the convenience 
 of the service may dictate. 
 
 By Shooting. In cases of capital punishment by shoot- 
 ing, great ceremony is ordinarily observed. Tlie troops, 
 to witness the execution, are formed on three sides of a 
 square, each side formed in two lines, with an interval 
 between the lines of twenty paces. The execution paity 
 consists of ten or twelve men and a sergeant, under the 
 orders of the provost-marshal. Tlie pieces will be load- 
 ed under the direction of the latter, out of sight of the 
 firing party. He will see that one piece is loaded with 
 a blank cartridge, and the remainder with ball cart- 
 ridges, in the most careful manner. The procession ^vill 
 api)roach the line fi*om the right, in the following or- 
 der, viz. : 
 
 1. Provost-marshal. 
 
EXECUTION OF SENTENCE. 167 
 
 2. Band of tlie prisoner's regiment, playing a funeral 
 march. 
 
 3. Firing party. 
 
 4. Coffin, borne by four men. 
 
 5. Prisoner and Cliaj)lain. 
 C. Escort. 
 
 When the procession shall have reached the right of 
 the divison, the front battalions shall face to the rear, 
 and the procession will pass between the lines of the 
 battalions around to the left of the division. It will 
 halt and form, facing outward, on the vacant side of the 
 square. During its passage the bands of the regiments 
 which it passes shall in succession j^lay funeral marches, 
 and after its passage each regiment in the front line 
 will, in succession, face to the front. 
 
 On arriving at the open space, the music ceases; the 
 prisoner is placed on the ftital spot marked Ijy his coffin; 
 the charge, finding and sentence of the court-martial, and 
 the order for his execution are read to the culprit, and 
 also, at the same time to each regiment by its adjutant; 
 the chaplain having engaged in prayer with the con- 
 demned, retires; the execution party forms at six or 
 eight paces from the prisoner, and iticeives the signal 
 fi-om the provost-marshal. If its fire does not prove 
 instantaneously effectual, it is the duty of the provost- 
 marshal to complete the sentence with his pistol. Some- 
 times the fire of a file or two is reserved, to be prepared 
 for this i)ainful occurrence. After the execution, the 
 troops break into column by the right, and move past 
 the corpse in slow time. 
 
 By Hanging. Death by hanging is mtnessed by the 
 troops formed in s(|uare on the gallows as a centre. 
 
168 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MARTIAL. 
 
 The executioner performs his office under the direction 
 of the provost-marshal. The troops march oft' tlie 
 ground in slow time; the provost-marshal with the 
 escort remaining until the body is taken down. 
 
 Drtimuied out. Soldiers are sometimes ordered to be 
 discharged with ignominy, in pursuance of the sentence 
 of a coui't-martial, and the sentence is executed as fol- 
 lows : The troops being assembled, and the man about 
 to be discharged brought forward in charge of a guard, 
 the several crimes and irre2:ularities of which he has 
 been found guilty are recapitulated, and the order for 
 his discharge is read, in which is noticed his ignominious 
 conduct. The buttons, facings, and any other distinc- 
 tions are then stripped from his clothing, and he is tnim- 
 peted or di'ummed out with the " rogue's march," 
 through the barracks or camp of his corps. 
 
 Corporeal punishment is used, in the articles of war, 
 to include confinements, ball, and chain, &c., to which 
 an oftender is subjected in his person. 
 
 A commanding officer is not justified in releasing sol- 
 diers under sentence of corporeal punishment, permit- 
 ting them to do duty in presence of the enemy, or at 
 other times, and afterward inflicting the punishment. 
 Such a release is a remission of the unexpired portion 
 of the sentence. ' 
 
 When a soldier is sentenced to close confinement in 
 the cells, if sickness should require him to be removed 
 to the hospital, he would, upon recovery of his health, 
 be returned to imprisonment for the remainder of his 
 sentence, but the time of his being in hospital must be 
 counted a part of his imprisonment. When in hospital, 
 be is deemed a prisoner. 
 
 I 
 
EXECUTION OF SENTENCE. 169 
 
 Place. Courts-martial do not notice tlie ijlace of im- 
 prisonment, in tlieir sentence. This is left to tlie com- 
 manding officer under whose control the sentence is to 
 be executed, and therefore the place of imprisonment 
 may be changed should the removal of the garrison, or 
 other cause, render it necessary. The time taken to 
 effect 'the change would be counted in cases of ordinary 
 confinement, but where confinement, either solitary, or 
 on bread and water diet, is the sentence, the prescribed 
 number of days must be fulfilled. 
 
 Time. In calculating the period of imprisonment, 
 the day on which the sentence commences, and that on 
 which the prisoner is to be released, are both to be 
 counted; and it may also be mentioned, that in all cases, 
 unless calendar months are specified, lunar months of 
 twenty-eight days are always to be understood. 
 
CHAPTEE XY. 
 
 EEDRESSmG WRONGS, AND APPEALS. 
 
 ProtectioM to Inferiors. The articles of war contain 
 fall authority for protecting the rights and interests of 
 inferiors, by giving to all officers and soldiers the right 
 ©f appeal, and requiring superiors, in positive and un- 
 equivocal terms, to follow certain prescribed modes for 
 the doing justice to the appellant. While placing in 
 the hands of the inferior the right to demand redress 
 and to force a superior to act upon his complaint, the 
 laws also give the superior an opportunity to redress 
 the wrong, of his own motion and by his o"\vn act. In 
 the case of a soldier it requires, without qualification or 
 condition, a regimental court-martial to be summoned 
 upon complaint being made, and with the reserved and 
 absolute right to appeal to a general court-martial. In 
 the case of wrongs, we thus see a palpable i)reference 
 given to soldiers, by making an investigation immediately 
 follow the complaint in the first instance, wliile with offi- 
 cers, an examination is only required after a refusal to 
 grant redress, and ui:)on an appeal from such refusal. 
 
 Officers. The 34fA a?'ticle of loar enacts, that " If 
 any officer shall think himself wronged l^y his colonel, 
 or the commanding officer of the regiment, and shall, 
 upon due application being made to him, be refused re- 
 dress, he may complain to the general commanding in 
 
EEDKESSING WEONGS, AND APPEALS. 171 
 
 the state or territory where such regiment shall be sta- 
 tioned, in order to obtain justice ; who is hereby re- 
 quired to examine into said complaint, and take proper 
 measures for redressing the wrong complained of, and 
 transmit, as soon as possible, to the Department of War, 
 a true state of such com])laint, ^vith the proceedings had 
 thereon." 
 
 This only refers to a wrong supposed to have been 
 done by the colonel or commanding officer of the regi- 
 ment, but the custom of service has extended its appli- 
 cation to all wrongs implicating any superior officer, as 
 the statute, being remedial and not penal, must receive 
 an equitable and liberal interpretation, so as to attain 
 most effectually the end in view, and prevent a failure 
 of the remedy intended. 
 
 Following, however, the letter of the law, the aggriev- 
 ed officer must first make due application for redress, to 
 the colonel or commanding officer of the regiment. 
 This must be made in writing, and the supposed aggres- 
 sor allowed reasonable time to act upon the apj^lication 
 by redressing the grievance, or returning the complaint 
 with his refusal. Should he " be refused redress" either 
 in express terms, or by such a neglect of the application 
 as shall constructively amount to a denial of justice, he 
 may then complain to the general commanding in the 
 state or territory. This complaint must pass through 
 the hands of the colonel, lie being an intermediate com- 
 mander, who has thus a second opportunity of acting 
 upon it, and must 1)e identical with the ap})lication sub- 
 mitted in the first instance. The general is required to 
 examine into the complaint, and take proper measures 
 for redressing the wroni:,^, and no discretion is left him 
 
172 MILITAKY LAW AND COURTS-IIAKTIAL. 
 
 in this regard, and in transmitting all proceedings liad 
 thereon, to the War Department. But if the charge 
 laid be incapable of proof, or the grievance stated do not 
 amount to a crime of militar}^ cognizance, it is usual to 
 return the accusatory complaint to the party making it, 
 mth an admonition, or advice, that it be withdrawn. 
 Should, however, the comj^lainant insist that the state- 
 ment of his grievances be brought to the notice of the 
 department of war, the general is bound to forward it. 
 Even his peremptory refusal to transmit it would not be 
 prejudicial to the comj^lainant, as the latter has the 
 right, in that case, to addi^ess himself direct to the War 
 Department through the adjutant-general's office. 
 
 IVoii-Coinmi§sioiicd Officers and Soldiers. The Soth 
 article of loar enacts, that " If any inferior officer or sol- 
 dier shall think himself wronged by his captain or other 
 officer, he is to complain thereof to the commanding offi- 
 cer of the regiment, who is hereby requii'ed to summon 
 a regimental court-martial, for the doing justice to the 
 complainant, from which regimental court-martial either 
 party may, if he thinks himself still aggrieved, appeal 
 to a general court-martial. But if, upon a second hear- 
 ing, the appeal shall appear vexatious and groundless, 
 the person so appealing shall be punished at the discre- 
 tion of the said court-martial." 
 
 Two questions present themselves : What " lorongs''' 
 are referred to ? and, what is meant by " his captain or 
 other officer V 
 
 This article was originally adopted from the British 
 article of war, by the revolutionar}^ government, on the 
 20tli of September, 1*776, and was continued in force 
 under the constitution until repealed and supj^lied by the 
 
REDRESSING WRONGS, AND APPEALS. lT3 
 
 act of April lOtli, 1806. Originally it read, "his cap- 
 tain or other officer commanding the troop, or company 
 to which he belongs," and the evident intention of the 
 cliange to " his captain, or other officer," was to extend 
 the effect of the article to all officers whatsoever. Other- 
 wise, how can we reconcile the suppression of the limit- 
 ation ^vith the remedial 2:>urposes of the article. Its 
 object being remedial, the law is intended to cover, with 
 its j^rotection, all cases which might by possibility oc- 
 cur, and no limitation is placed to its ]3ower that the 
 ri2:hts of the soldier mis-ht be held subservient to his 
 own will, in every contingency. No evil, but much good, 
 must of necessity be the oljvious result, and there can be 
 no reason why the most liberal interpretation should 
 not be given it, if there be any doul)t as to the extent 
 of its operation. The British article has ahvays been, 
 and is still, expressly limited to cases arising l^etween a 
 soldier and his captain, or other officer commanding his 
 troop or company, but that is no argument in favor of 
 such a construction Ijeing placed on ours, but brings 
 us to the conclusion that in making the change in its 
 phraseology, our legislators desired to place no bounds 
 to its beneficial effects and influences. 
 
 ivroiiffs. The construction has always obtained in 
 the British service, that the wrongs referred to must re- 
 late to, wliat is commonly termed the interior economy 
 of a company, and have reference to pay or allowances, 
 clothing, messing, or the repair of arms and accoutre- 
 ments, and must resolve itself into some claim not ad- 
 mitted by the soldier ; and the British article of April 
 2oth, 1800, confirms the above construction, by limiting 
 it to cases in which lie " sliall think himself wronged, 
 
174 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 in any matter affecting liis pay or elotliing, by liis cap- 
 tain, &c." As long as our article was an exact trans- 
 cript of tlie old British article, just so long their intei'- 
 pretation held good, but in extending its operation to 
 all officers, the wrongs incurred could no longer be cir- 
 cumscribed within the narrow bounds of a company's 
 interior economy. In our opinion, therefore, the law is 
 applicable to every possible wrong inflicted by an offi- 
 cer on a soldier, when that ^yrong is capable of being 
 redressed. 
 
 Redress. Upon complaint being made to the com- 
 manding officer of the regiment, he is required to sum- 
 mon ii 7r^(/i' mental court-martial for the doing justice to 
 the complainant.^ This requirement is imperative and 
 compulsory. Punishment forms no part of its office, as 
 the supposed wrong-doer is a commissioned officer over 
 whom a regimental court-martial has no jurisdiction, 
 and upon whom it cannot sit in judgment. Neither 
 can it be considered in the light of a court of inquiry, 
 because these are prohibited unless directed by the 
 President of the United States, or demanded by the 
 accused. This court-martial is organized for s2oecial 
 purposes, and the only authority given to it, is to decide 
 on the justice or injustice of the complaint. Even an 
 opinion pointing directly to the character of an officer 
 cannot be given, it must be confined to the merits of 
 the complaint, and simply state whether or not it be 
 well founded, and to what extent. " To do ^justice to 
 a complainant^ and to sustain the majesty of a violated 
 law, are two very different things. In the one case, a 
 
 *The British article of war, 13 (April 25th, 1860), says, "to summon a regimen- 
 tal court of inquiry, for the purpose of determining whether such complaint is just " 
 
 i 
 
REDRESSi:srG WRONGS, AN13 APPEALS. 175 
 
 wrong may be remedied to tlie entire satisftxction of tlie 
 conij)lainant ; but in cases of a violation of latu by an 
 officer, and wliere the majesty of tlie law is to be vindi- 
 cated by the infliction of a penalty upon the aggressor, 
 if a commissioned officer, a regimental court-martial 
 should not be summoned, the trial of a commissioned 
 officer by such court being prohibited by the 67th arti- 
 cle of w^ar ; and an incpiiry antecedent to a trial by a 
 general court-martial would be a violation of a wise 
 provision of the 92d article of war."* 
 
 The individual aggrieved must, in the first place, 
 seek redress at the hands of the officer who has A\a'ong- 
 ed him, and it is only wh«n this redress is denied him, 
 and he still thinks himself wronged, that he carries his 
 com})laint to the commanding officer of the regiment. 
 This, though not required l)y the letter of the law, is 
 strictly in consonance with the fixed rule for communi- 
 cating with suj^eriors ; and l)esides, the supposed wrong- 
 doer may at once do justice to the complainant, and 
 obviate the necessity for further proceedings. Having 
 received the complaint, the commanding officer of the 
 regiment is compelled to summon a regimental court- 
 martial for the doing justice to the coni])lainant. If 
 the alleged ^^Tong be i)roved l)efore the court-martial, 
 its decision must be such as shall cause the wrong to 
 be remedied. The decision being then adverse to the 
 officer, it becomes the dut}- of the commanding officer 
 of the regiment to see that the officer does justice to 
 the complainant. If the officer refuse so to d(^, while he 
 takes no appeal from the decision, his refusal becomes 
 an offence, and he is liable to trial by a general court- 
 
 * G 0. No 13, Wir Department, February 20th, 1843. 
 
1Y6 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 martial, for disobedience of tlie orders of tlie colonel, 
 and for contempt of tlie decision of tlie regimental court. 
 
 Appeal. From the award of the court, either party, 
 the soldier or the officer, may, if he thinks himself still 
 aggrieved, appeal to a general court-martial. But if 
 upon a second hearing, the appeal shall appear vexa- 
 tious and groundless, the appellant shaE be 2:)unished at 
 the discretion of the said court. The absolute right of 
 appeal is thereby given to either party. Should the 
 decision be against the appellant, the court may state 
 that the appeal did not appear vexatious, as in truth it 
 need not of necessity be, for the appellant might have 
 entertained an honest but erroneous view of the case. 
 Should the appeal, however, bear palpable evidence of 
 its vexatiousness or groundlessness, the court itself has 
 power to award summary jjuuishment. 
 
 This is the only case — the redressing of wrongs — in 
 which an appeal can be made to a higher tribunal, 
 under the articles of war ; thus exhibiting special jeal- 
 ousy for the rights of inferior officers and soldiers, by 
 making in their favor a marked exception to the ordi- 
 nary course of military trials. 
 
 ]Tio<ic of Prococdijis. The regimental court-martial 
 being assembled, and the parties present, the order con- 
 vening the court is read, and both the appellant and 
 defendant exercise the right of challenging any of the 
 meml)ers. The court is then duly sworn. The com- 
 plairiant next makes a statement of his grievance, and 
 proceeds to substantiate it by bringing in evidence, 
 under oath, to prove the alleged wrong. The officer 
 may then adduce any testimony he may have, in refuta- 
 tion or explanation, and make such statement as he 
 
REDRESSING WRONGS, AND APPEALS. 177 
 
 may deem necessary to liis exculpation. All tlie evi- 
 dence and explanations liaving been received and re- 
 corded, tlie court is closed for deliberation, and comes to 
 a decision on tlie merits of tlie case. The proceedings 
 are sul)ject to the confirmation or disapproval of the 
 officer ordering the court. 
 
 From this decision, should either party think himself 
 still aggrieved, he may appeal to a general court-martial^ 
 by which the whole su1)ject is again investigated. It is 
 a new trial of the very same circumstances, and accord- 
 ing to Blackstone " a new trial is a rehearing of the 
 cause before another jury, l)ut with as little prejudice 
 to either party as if it had never been heard before. 
 No advantage is taken of the former verdict, and the 
 subsequent verdict, though contrary to the first, imports 
 no tittle of blame upon the former jury, who, had they 
 possessed the same lights and advantages, would proba- 
 bly have altered their own opinion." The members of 
 the regimental court can neither aj^pear in court as de- 
 fendants, nor take any part in the proceedings, nor can 
 they be examined as to any point connected with the 
 former trial. The appellant sustains the part of prose- 
 cutor, and the pai-ty in whose favor the inferior court 
 has given its judgment is defendant in the cause ; the 
 complaint on the original trial being the matter in 
 issue, on the truth or falsity of which the general court 
 is to decide. Witnesses may l)e called by either party, 
 whether they have been examined before the inferior 
 court or not. " By consent of the parties the evidence 
 at the former trial may be admitted."* Before neither 
 of these coui-ts does any one appear as a prisoner. 
 
 * Tytler, p. 336. 
 
 12 
 
178 :military law aist) couets-maetial. 
 
 The court having assembled, the appellant and re- 
 spondent being present, the order convening the court 
 is read. The judge advocate then informs the court, 
 that the case about to be investigated is an appeal from 
 a regimental to a general court-martial, unless the object 
 of the trial be embodied in the order for assembling. 
 Both parties have the right of challenging. The court 
 is then duly sworn. The statement of the appellant's 
 alleged wrong is novv read and recorded ; after which 
 he adduces evidence in su]3port thereof. The appellant 
 should not in any case be sworn. When the appellant's 
 case is fully before the court, the respondent replies to 
 it, l^y argument and such testimony as he considers 
 necessary. He should not be sworn, unless requii'ed to 
 be so by the a23pellant, or thought necessary by the 
 court, that he may depose to facts. The examination of 
 witnesses, who must all give their evidence on oath, is 
 taken in precisely the same manner as on other courts- 
 martial. 
 
 The trial beino; finished, the court deliberates on the 
 evidence which has been adduced before it, and gives 
 an opinion thereon. This opinion consists in the declara- 
 tion that the decision of the regimental court-martial, 
 from which the appellant has appealed, is, or is not, 
 borne out by the evidence recorded on the proceedings. 
 Should the court be further of opiuion that the appeal 
 is vexatious and groundless, such fact A^•ill be stated, 
 and the court would proceed to sentence him at its dis- 
 cretion. It then remains for the reviewing authority to 
 confirm or disapprove the proceedings and oj^inion of 
 the court. 
 
CHAPTEE XVI. 
 
 COURTS OF INQUIRY. 
 
 A couET of inquiry may be considered more a coun- 
 cil than a court, wliicli an officer in command may take 
 advantage of to assist liim in forming his judgment on 
 any doubtful or intricate subject. It is sometimes called 
 upon to receive and methodize information only ; at other 
 times, to give an opinion on any question or subject 
 proposed.* In the British service there is no specific 
 enactment for holding such courts, l)ut the power seems 
 to 1)6 an emanation from the prerogative of the crown, 
 and to have been consecrated by custom as part of the 
 military judicature. 
 
 Authority to Cosiveiie. For the army of the United 
 States, courts of inquiry have been sj^ecially authorized 
 by the 91st and 92d articles of war. The power to 
 order them is therein strictly confined to the President 
 of the United States, unless demanded by the accused. 
 No one, therefore, but the executive can, of his own 
 motion, order a court of inquiry. Upon application of 
 the accused, all commanding officers have the undoul)t- 
 ed power to order such courts, though the practice of 
 the service, in cases of commissioned officers, has limited 
 its exercise to those who can convene general courts- 
 martial ; and in the case of enlisted men to those officers 
 who can assemble either of the inferior courts. 
 
 * Griffith's Xotcs, p. 133. 
 
180 MILITARY LAW AND COrETS-MARTIAL. 
 
 Nnmber of Hembcrs. Tlie court sliall consist of one 
 or more officers, not exceeding three, and a judge advo- 
 cate, or other suitable person, as a recorder, to reduce 
 the proceedings and evidence to WTiting. 
 
 Jiirisidiction. Their jurisdiction only extends to an 
 examination into the nature of any transaction, accusa- 
 tion, or imputation against any officer or soldier, but 
 they shall not give their opinion on the merits of the 
 case, excepting they shall be thereto specially requii'ed. 
 The order directing the court to assemble should con- 
 tain instructions as to the extent of the investigation, 
 and should also state whether or not the court is to re- 
 port the facts merely, or give an opinion on the merits 
 of the case. The court must conform strictly to these 
 directions, either by giving a general opinion on the 
 whole matter and whether further investigation and 
 action are called for, or a statement of facts only, or these 
 ^^^th an opinion thereon ; its duties depending entirely 
 on the instructions which the authority convening the 
 court may think proper to give. Except when ordered 
 by the President, the cornet cannot be directed to inves- 
 tigate other matters than those for which the officer or 
 soldier has demanded the court, unless such incidental 
 examination of particular points becomes necessary for a 
 true understanding of the matter in issue. 
 
 The Accused. Although the accused cannot refuse to 
 obey an order du-ecting him to appear before a com-t of 
 inquiiy, convened for the purpose of inquiring into his 
 conduct, he may object to take any part in the proceed- 
 ings, and decline answering any qu<'Stions which may, 
 in his oj^inion, be prejudicial to his cause in the event 
 of a trial. From the very language of the article, he 
 
COURTS OF INQUIRY. 181 
 
 lias, liowever, a positive right to be present at the ex- 
 amination, because "the parties accused shall also be 
 permitted to cross-examine and interrogate the wit- 
 nesses, so as to investigate fully the circumstances in 
 the question." 
 
 The judge advocate, as recorder, is the prosecutor in 
 the case ; the accuser may, however, be permitted to re- 
 main in court and make suggestions to the judge advo- 
 cate. The cornet may allow the accuser to appear and 
 prosecute the inquiry, as was done in the case of General 
 Pillow, where the accuser was the prosecutor. The 
 duty of the judge advocate, as recorder, is to reduce the 
 proceedings and evidence to writing. 
 
 ciiaiiengc. It has been decided and is now an es- 
 tablished principle, that members of a court of inquiry 
 can be challenged, for cause, by either party. And this 
 upon oljvious grounds. The proceedings l)efore such a 
 court do not differ materially in character from a trial, 
 except in the not finding and sentencing. The members, 
 judge advocate, and mtnesses are sworn, and the parties 
 have the right of cross-examination. In giving their 
 opinion, therefore, when such opinion is required, it is 
 absolutely essential that the members should arrive at 
 their conclusions after a candid and impartial investiga- 
 tion. The result may bear hard upon the accused in its 
 effect upon puTjlic opinion, and the right of challenge, 
 exercised solely for the Ijenefit of the accused, and to 
 attain impartial justice, should l)e j)ermitted, suljject of 
 coui'se to a wise discretion on the ])art of the court itself. 
 
 Secrecy. By reference to the oath prescribed for the 
 members and the separate one for the judge advocate,'' 
 
 * 93d article of war. 
 
182 jnLITARY LAW AND COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 it will be seen that neither are bound to secrecy. The 
 members are required to truly examine and inquire into 
 the matter before them, according to the evidence ; and 
 the judge advocate to accurately and impartially record 
 the proceedings of the court and the evidence given in 
 the case. Custom has, however, fixed the practice not 
 to disclose any 'portion of the proceedings, unless sanc- 
 tioned so to do by the superior authority to whom the 
 proceedings are submitted, because the expression of any 
 opinion might p]*ejudice the accused before the. public, 
 and may be of great injuiy to his cause in case of trial 
 by court-martial. 
 
 ivitnesses. "* Courts of Inquiry have the same power 
 to summon witnesses as courts-martial. 
 
 Counsel. The parties before a Court of Inquiry — 
 the accuser and the accused — may be allowed counsel. 
 
 The iiours of sitting are not limited for courts of in- 
 quiry. The statute is also silent as to whether the comi 
 shall sit with dosed or open doors^ but the legal authori- 
 ties are unanimous that it may be open or closed as the 
 authority convening it shall prescribe. In other words, 
 courts of inquiry are inherently closed courts, to which 
 persons have access by j^ermission and not of right. 
 I ^"VTiere the authority ordering the court is silent on this 
 
 i point, the court decides at its discretion. 
 
 Contempts l)efore courts of inquiry are as punishable 
 I as if committed before coui'ts-martial. Officers may be 
 
 placed in arrest, and soldiers be confined by its order. 
 
 The accused is not necessarily in arrest^ when attend- 
 ing a court of inquiry. 
 
 Record. The 92d article prescribes that the \)Y0- 
 ceedings of a court of inquiry must be authenticated by 
 
 I 
 
COURTS OF INQUIRY. 183 
 
 the signature of tlie recorder and tlie president, and de- 
 livered to tlie convening authority, and the said proceed- 
 ings may be admitted as evidence by a court-martial, in 
 cases not capital, or extending to the dismission of an 
 officer, provided that the circumstances are such that 
 oral testimony cannot be obtained. The proceedings 
 may be returned for revision, as in the case of courts- 
 martial. 
 
 The accused cannot demand a copy of the proceed- 
 ings, as the legal right is confined tu the case of a trial 
 before a general court-martial.* 
 
 Statute of liiiuitatiou. It was the oj)inion of the 
 attorney-general that where there is no pertinent stat- 
 ute nile, a court of inquiry is to be governed by the 
 general principles of military law, applying the analo- 
 gies of a court-martial where those are aj)plicable, and 
 recurring to adjudged cases, precedents ruled, authori- 
 tative legal opinions and approved books of legal expo- 
 sition.f 
 
 In^his " Practice of Courts-Martial" General Macomb 
 lays down the principle that " transactions may become 
 the suTyect of investigation l^y coui'ts of inquiry after a 
 lapse of any number of years, on the application of the 
 party accused, or by order of the President of the Unit- 
 ed States ; the limitation mentioned in the 88th article 
 being aj^plicable only to general courts-martial." J 
 
 De Hart does not accede to this doctrine, fii'st, be- 
 cause of the doubts he entei-tains of the power of the 
 President to dismiss an officer of the army. Had the 
 President that power, a court of inquiry might be con- 
 
 * 90th article of war. f Opinions, Jan. 31st, 1857. 
 
 X Pago 91. 
 
184 JnLITAEY LAW AND COUKTS-^rAKTIAL. 
 
 siclered a favor by wliicli an accused person may liave 
 an opj^ortunity of justifying liimself. " But the power 
 of the President to dismiss officers beins; an established 
 legal doctrine, the objection fails for want of premises."-* 
 Secondly, l^ecause of the inconvenience to officers whose 
 conduct is the subject of inquiiy, and of the possibility 
 that this power may be abused in the hands of those in 
 command. The generality of these objections consti- 
 tutes theii' best refutation. There must necessarily 
 enter into a proper discussion of the subject, much 
 higher and broader considerations of the public service. 
 
 The great purpose of a coiu't of inquiry is to collect 
 information, by which to guide the discretion of him 
 who orders it. The exercise of that discretion may 
 lead to a court-martial, but not necessarily. The sub- 
 ject of inquiry may be so comprehensive that its rela- 
 tion to individuals may be of secondaiy consideration. 
 It may involve matters of public welfare and of the 
 general well-being of the ser\^ce ; and as to the excul- 
 pation of individuals, it is certain that the statute of 
 limitation but ill performs that office ; it wholly fails to 
 satisfy the point of honor. 
 
 "It may ha2:)pen that questions shall arise as to an 
 offence alleged to have been committed by an officer 
 more than two years ago, as to Avhicli he ought to be 
 exculpated if innocent, or if guilty dismissed by the 
 President, though not liable to be tried by com*t-mar- 
 tial. In such a case, a com-t of inquiry protects the 
 officer, and informs the conscience of the executive. 
 
 A court of inquiiy may be needed for the very pur- 
 pose of ascertaining whether an alleged offence was or 
 
 * Opinions, Dec. 30tli, 1S53. 
 
COURTS OF INQUIRY. 185 
 
 was not committed witliin two years, and so informing 
 the mind and guiding tlie discretion of the executive on 
 the very point of the legality of a court-martial. 
 
 In a word, coui'ts of inquiry are not limited in the 
 terms of the articles of war ; it is well settled that they 
 ai'e not limited by construction in Great Britain ; the 
 more general conclusion has been the same in this coun- 
 try ; and that conclusion seems to me consonant with 
 the general principles of law, and especially convenient 
 in a constitutional government like the United States. 
 
 * Opiuions, Dec. 30th, 1853. 
 
 ?5* 
 
CHAPTER XYII. 
 
 BOAEDS FOE RETIRING DISABLED OFFICERS. 
 
 Autisoriiy. By tlie " Act P^o^^ding for tlie Better 
 Organization of the Military Establisliment," approved 
 August 3d, 1861, it is enacted, that any commissioned 
 officer of the army who shall have served as such forty 
 consecutive years, may, upon his own application to the 
 President of the United States, be placed u^^on the list 
 of retired officers.* And it is foi'ther enacted, that if 
 any commissiooied officer of the army shall have become, 
 or shall hereafter become, incapable of performing the 
 duties of his office, he shall be placed upon the retired 
 list and withdrawn from active service and command, 
 and from the line of promotion: 2)rovided that there 
 shall not be on the retired list at any one tune more 
 than seven -per centum of the Avhole number of officers 
 of the army, as fixed by law.f 
 
 In order to carry out the provisions of this act, the 
 secretary of war, under the duection and approval of 
 the President of the United States, shall, from time to 
 time, as occasion may require, assemble a board of not 
 more than nine nor less than five .commissioned officers, 
 two-fifths of whom shall be of the medical stafi'; the 
 board, except those taken from the medical staff, to be 
 composed, as far as may 1)e, of his seniors in rank.J 
 
 * Section loth. f Section ICth. X Section 17th. 
 
BOARDS FOE EETIRESTG DISABLED OFFICERS. 187 
 
 Tlie jMi-isdiction of tliese boards extends to the deter- 
 minatiou of tlie facts as to tlie natiiie and occasion of 
 tlie disahility of such officers as appear disaljled to per- 
 form military service. As it is solely by direction and 
 approval of the Pre;jident, that such boards are assem- 
 bled, cases of officers can be brought to their cognizance 
 by this same authority alone ; and as a fm'ther j)rotec- 
 tion to individuals where such vital interests as their 
 positions in active service are in question, no officer shall 
 be retu-ed either partially or wholly from the service 
 without having- had a fair and full hearing before the 
 board, if, upon due summons, he shall demand it. 
 
 These boards are invested by law with the powers of 
 a coui't of inquiiy and coui't-martial, and their decisions 
 are made subject to like revision as that of said courts 
 by the President of the United States. Whenever they 
 find an officer incapacitated for active service, the statute 
 requires them to report whether, in their judgment, the 
 said incapacity resulted from long and faithful service, 
 from wounds or injury received in the line of duty, from 
 sickness or exposure therein, or from any other incident 
 of service. 
 
 The action of a board assimilates more nearly to that 
 of a court of inquiry, as it is not a trial to vindicate the 
 majesty of violated law, but a strict investigation of the 
 facts in the case, with judgment thereon. In conducting 
 the proceedings, therefore, the rules which govern coui'ts 
 of inquiry are closely applicable. 
 
 ciiaiieiigc. The party whose case is before the 
 board, has the same right to challenge as that of a pris- 
 oner before a court-martial. This follows directly from 
 the sj^u'it of the law, which gives him the right of a 
 
188 MILITARY LAW AT^D COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 fair and full hearing if lie sliall demand it. That a 
 member entertaining feelings of malice toward the party 
 concerned, should l>e excused from ser^-ing, is as neces- 
 sary to imjDartial justice in such an investigation as on 
 a trial before a court-martial. In the one case the 
 accused is punished if convicted; in the other if judg- 
 ment be adverse, the party loses his position in active 
 ser^-ice, and fiu'ther still, is liable to one of three condi- 
 tions of retirement, either of which will weigh most 
 heavily u23on an officer in a pecuniary point of view, in 
 the natui'e of a fine of greater or less magnitude, accord- 
 ing to the judgment of the board. 
 
 Oath. The statute provides " that the members of 
 the board shall in every case be sworn to an honest and 
 impartial discharge of their duties." The judge advo- 
 cate is also sworn to record the proceedings of the board 
 and the evidence in the case, accurately and impartially, 
 for although this is not mentioned in the law, yet justice 
 demands that the officer who keeps the record, examines 
 witnesses, <fec., and is, besides, the legal adviser of the 
 board, should be forced to an honest discharo-e of his 
 duties through the binding efficacy of an oath. 
 
 The board is not bound to secrecy, but, as in the case 
 of a court of inquiry, its action should not be divulged 
 until published by proper authority. 
 
 '\Vitnesj«cs. These boards have, equally with courts- 
 martial, the power to summon witnesses, and decide upon 
 the competency and admissibility of evidence, and the 
 legal scope of the investigation in each particular case. 
 
 Couii§ei. The party concerned may l)e allowed coun- 
 sel, on ai^plication to the board. 
 
 Contempts. Being invested -^vith like powers as 
 
BOARDS FOR RETIRING DISABLED OFFICERS. 189 
 
 courts-martial, contempts before tliem may l)e punislied 
 summarily ; and officers of whatever grade may be 
 arrested, and soldiers confined, by tlieir order. 
 
 Tlie party concerned is not in arrest when before the 
 board, and he may, or may not ap2:)ear before it, at his 
 option. 
 
 The board sits with open doors, except when ques- 
 tions arise demanding its decision, which is always made 
 with closed doors. 
 
 Rights of the Party. The party concerned has the 
 right to cross-examine witnesses, and to call witnesses, 
 and to offer argument. 
 
 Decision. The board closes for deliberation, and 
 whenever it finds an officer incapacitated for active ser- 
 vice, will rej)ort its judgment as to the cause of said 
 incapacity. The proceedings of the board must then 
 be authenticated by the signatures of the presiding offi- 
 cer and judge advocate, and transmitted to the secretary 
 of war to be laid before the President of the United 
 States for his action, the proceedings being, by law, made 
 subject to his revision. 
 
 If it be the judgment of the board, approved by the 
 President, that the said incapacity " results from long 
 and faithful service, from wounds or injury received in 
 the line of duty, fi'om sickness or ex|:>osure therein, or 
 from any other incident of service," the disabled officer 
 shall thereuj^on be placed upon the list of retired officers, 
 with the pay proper of the highest rank held by him at 
 the time of his retirement, and four rations per day. If, 
 however, the judgment of the board, approved by the 
 President, be that the said incapacity did not result 
 from long and faithful service, &c., but otherwise, the 
 
190 MILITAEY LAW AND COUBTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 fficer shall }n' retired as ahove, eitljcr with liis pay 
 projK^r alone, or with his service rations alone, at the 
 dlscTetion of the President, or he shall l>e wholly retired 
 from the service, with one year's pay and allowances; 
 and in this last case, his name shall l>e omitted frf)m the 
 army register.* The law has thus fixed, in terms, the 
 a<.'tir)n of the executive in any case that ma} arise. 
 
 R<'%l«iion. Shrnild the j»roceedings in any ease, require 
 fiiillier and more careful d(*]ilKTation, the President ma} , 
 at his rliwTetion,send them back to the hoard for revision. 
 
 TIk; party interested mny d<'mand a ffj^r// of the j>ro- 
 ('('/diiKjn^ as with courts-martial. 
 
 DrcMM. The officers pailially retired shall he entitled 
 to wear the unifonn of thcrir resp(?ctive ^n-ades, shall 
 continue to he home u]»on the anny regist(;r, and shall 
 ]>e suliject tf) \\w. niles and articles of war, and to 
 tT'ial hy general court-martial for any hreach of the said 
 art.i<'l<-s.f 
 
 Tlio «iiiiiil(> or llniliniion do('S X\(A 'i]»ply to hoards 
 for retiring disal»hMl officers, and traiis}i(ti(»ns nmning 
 hack through the officer's entire length of service., may 
 )>ecome sul»ject to investigation. The law states that 
 the lM»anl sliall determine facts as to the nnture an<l 
 ofrasion of th(! disahility. The occasi(»n may (hite hnck 
 a numher of years, and without the ]>ower to investigate 
 m/ittcrs ihnt transpired uV th.'il ]»eriod, tin* rnd fur which 
 the hoard is ass«;njhled would he signjill} defeated. In 
 order to pass judgment und(Tstandingly, thelxwird nuist 
 not only he ahle to dr(i(hi U]»nn the fnrt <»f tin- jil'esent 
 disnliility, hut also as t«i tlie cdiisr, ninntc th(>ui.di it he, 
 of tliat disahility. 
 
 • S«i(itl(in I7l,li. ■! Siioliiiu IMth. 
 
-wa.- 
 
 _:, "S&i^ :hi-: 
 
 li^ ewe. '•as inih- Tsaiat Irx lafe- 
 
 w&^ ^ 
 
 
 
CHAPTEE XYIII. 
 OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE. 
 
 Authority to Appoint. By the act of Congress ap- 
 proved March IGtli, 1802, it is enacted, "That whenever 
 a general court-martial shall be ordered, the President 
 of the United States may appoint some fit person to act 
 as judge advocate, who shall be allowed, in addition to 
 his other pay, one dollar and twenty-five cents for every 
 day he shall be necessarily employed in the duties of 
 the said court, and in cases where the President shall 
 not have made such," &c. And by the 69th ai-ticle of 
 the rules and articles of war, it is provided that " The 
 judge advocate, or some person deputed by him, or by 
 the general, or ofi&cer commanding the aiTQy, detach- 
 ment, or garrison, shall prosecute in the name of the 
 United States, but shall so far consider himself as coun- 
 sel for the prisoner, after the said prisoner shall have 
 made his plea, as to object to any leading question to 
 any of the mtnesses, or any question to the prisoner 
 the answer to which might tend to criminate himself; 
 and administer to each member of the court, before 
 they proceed upon any trial, the following oath," &c. 
 
 The power to appoint a judge advocate, or some per- 
 son to officiate as such whenever a general court-martial 
 is ordered and assembled, flows from the above quoted 
 laws ; and the practice, based upon their liberal inter- 
 
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE. 193 
 
 pretation i?<, that the power to appoint some fit person 
 to act as such, is coextensive with the power to convene 
 a general court-martial. This power may be deputed to 
 a commanding officer of a detachment or garrison, when 
 the peculiar exigencies of the service demand it. 
 
 That the judge advocate should be a military por§on, 
 is directly implied in the above article, where the " tit 
 person" is compensated for his services by a specified 
 allowance " in addition to his other pay," thus having 
 direct reference to some person already in the employ of 
 the government. The dejmty^ for w^hose appointment 
 provision is made in the 69th article, must come under 
 the same rule, if we take a lil)eral view of the two arti- 
 cles above quoted, in connection with the practice of 
 armies in such cases. Furthermore, the responsibility 
 of the individual exercising such vital and important 
 functions in the administration of military justice, 
 should be fixed beyond cavil, and as none Init a mili- 
 tary person would be amenable to military law, and 
 subject to the military superior for the faithful perform- 
 ance of duty, so none l)ut those subject to such authori- 
 ty should l)e permitted to assume such responsiT)ilities. 
 
 Tile judge advocate must be a fit person, whose pres- 
 ence, duly appointed by authority, is essential to the 
 jurisdiction of a general court-martial ; who is the legal 
 adviser of the court ; the ^^^'if^uim mohile of a court-mar- 
 tial, as McArthur says, not only impelling it to action, 
 l)ut on whom in a great measure depends that harmony 
 of motion so necessary to constitute a regular court. It 
 is very evident that in the prosecution of crimes before 
 a special tribunal erected for si)ecial pur2')oses, a thor- 
 ough knowledge of the laws enacted for their govern- 
 13 
 
194 MILITARY LAW AjSTD COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 ment, and of the practice in similar cases, is most essen- 
 tial, and siicli information cannot be found outside of 
 the army, nor the want of it compensated by any fund 
 of legal lore. Sii' Charles J. Isapier truly observes, 
 that no one should hold this aj^pointment till after 
 undergoing a strict examination as to his knowledge of 
 military and criminal law, and the j^ractice of military 
 courts. But whatever be his qualifications, he should, 
 when conducting the proceedings of a court-martial, be 
 impressed with the facts; that justice is the object for 
 which a court-martial is convened and the judge advo- 
 cate appointed ; that the great principle of a military 
 court is honor ; a conscientious adherence to substantial 
 justice ; that the lousiness of courts-martial is, not to dis- 
 cuss points of law but to get at the truth l:)y all the 
 means in their power ; and that a judge advocate is the 
 main sj^ring of a court-martial ; that ou him the court 
 depends for information concerning the legality as well 
 as the regularity of its proceedings ; and if he errs all 
 may go wrong.* 
 
 Besides a perfect familiarity with the I'ules and arti- 
 cles of war, the general regulations of the arm}-^, and 
 the orders bearing on the subject and issued by compe- 
 tent authority, he should have recourse to the standard 
 works on military law and the practice of courts-mar- 
 tial, for information ou the many j^oints not fixed by 
 authority. 
 
 Prosecutor. By statute the judge advocate is the 
 official prosecutor of the United States, and when the 
 military accuser is permitted to be ]>resent, it is not as 
 a prosecutor, but only as adviser or assistant to the 
 
 * Hughes' Duties of Judge Advocate, p. 15. 
 
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE. 195 
 
 foiTQer, that liis influence in tlie case pending can be 
 felt. No officious interference on Hs part would be 
 tolerated, but his advice ought to be given privately to 
 the judge advocate. After the prisoner has made his 
 plea, it is made the duty of the judge advocate, so far 
 to identify himself with the interests of the prisoner, 
 as to ol)ject to any leading questions to any of the wit- 
 nesses, and to any questions to the accused the answers 
 to which might tend to criminate himself This duty 
 he is to perform whether or not the accused has counsel 
 to assist him in the defence. The object of the court is 
 not the conviction of the prisoner, as a necessity, but 
 the arriving at the truth, that there may not, in any 
 case, be a failure of justice, and justice does not mean a 
 conviction rather tliau an acquittal. 
 
 While a judge advocate should never omit any thing 
 which may be of service to the prisoner, neither should 
 he permit a criminal to escape punishment through any 
 leniency in the conduct of the trial. His course should 
 be thoroughly impartial, his every effort being directed 
 to- the attainment of truth. " Truth and equity should 
 l)e most conspicuously seen at all courts-martial, but 
 chicanery never permitted to enter the door."* 
 
 The law expressly states to wliat extent the judge 
 advocate sliall l)e counsel for the prisocicr, and as the 
 constitution allows to an accused person the assistance 
 of counsel in his defence, in all criminal prosecutions, 
 the duty of the judge advocate as such is restricted to 
 the words of the law, as indeed it must be from the 
 very nature of the case, as he cannot possibly jieiform 
 both duties — prosecutor and counsel — at the same time. 
 
 * Kennedy. 
 
196 MILITARY LAW AXD COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 The practice has, however, been for the judge advocate 
 to interfere to the extent to which the court itself is 
 bound to interpose ; to take care that the prisoner shall 
 not suffer from a want of knowledofe of the law, or from 
 a deficiency in experience or of al)ility to elicit from 
 witnesses, or to develop by the testimony a full state- 
 ment of the facts as bearing on the defence. 
 
 In court the judge advocate can go no farther in his 
 assistance, but out of court his advice should be freely 
 given when required, and every assistance extended to 
 the accused which is not incompatible with the honest 
 discharge of his duties as the public prosecutor. High 
 authority has emphatically denounced such a practice, 
 on the ground that the judge advocate, being both pros- 
 ecutor and counsel for the prisoner, can, nine times out 
 of ten, make the latter appear innocent or guilty at his 
 pleasure : he is like a man playing a game of chess with 
 himself, he can cause either the red or the white side to 
 win * In the exercise of the functions of his office as 
 counsel he should, therefore, caution the accused not to 
 divulge his line of defence, or the nature of the testi- 
 mony he intends eliciting from his witnesses, and con- 
 fine his advice to generalities that while evolving no 
 essential points that are to be made in the defence, will 
 inform the accused as to the best manner in which to 
 conduct it, and the points essential to be proved in 
 order to insure an acquittal. 
 
 Counsel. As it is a positive right of the prisoner to 
 have counsel to assist him, so it is admitted that the 
 judge advocate may also be assisted l)y such ; but, as in 
 the case of counsel for the defence, he can take no fui*- 
 
 * Sir C. J. Napier. 
 
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE. 197 
 
 ther part in the proceedings tlian by advising tlie judge 
 advocate upon sucli points as may demand liis attention. 
 This counsel must be admitted, solely on the part of the 
 United States, in whose name the prosecution is urged, 
 and cannot under any circumstances be admitted at the 
 instance of individuals interested in the result of the 
 trial Pending the trial of Commander Mackenzie, of 
 the navy, charged with murder o)i hoard a United States 
 vessel on the high seas, an application was made by two 
 legal gentlemen, stating " that they had l)een employed 
 by the relatives of one of the persons, for the murder 
 of whom Commander Mackenzie was then on trial ; to 
 attend the trial and take part therein, by examining and 
 cross-examining the witnesses who might be produced, 
 and proj)ounding such c^uestions, and offering such sug- 
 gestions in relation to the proceedings &c., as they might 
 deem necessary." The court, after matm'e cleliljeration, 
 decided that the application could not l)e granted.* 
 
 Rules of Proccdiire. There are no statutory provisions 
 regulating the manner in which military j^rosecutions 
 are to be conducted, and tlicrefore, in all cases in ^\■hich 
 forms or rules of proceeding l)efore courts-martial have 
 been neither established by law, nor fixed by the cus- 
 tom of service, the procedure must be in accordance 
 with the practice which governs criminal trials in the 
 ordinary courts of law. 
 
 Chur^^es. The judge advocate being furnislied ^vitli 
 the charges and specifications on which he has to prose- 
 cute, nmst, from the information given him by tlie ac- 
 cuser, instruct himself in all the circumstances of the 
 case, and the evidence by which the whole particulars 
 
 * Trial, pp. 8, 9. 
 
198 MILITARY LAW AND COUKTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 are to be proved against the prisoner. Wliere the task 
 is delegated to him of arranging a prosecution on 
 grounds defined for him by higher authority, it is strict- 
 ly his duty to inquire what persons have knowledge of 
 the facts in issue, and to what particulars each of these 
 can l>ear testimony, so that he ma}' not necessarily waste 
 the time of the court by adducing witnesses who may 
 be unable to furnish any information. 
 
 Summoning ^Vitne§ses. Having ascertained what wit- 
 nesses w^n be necessary both for the prosecution and 
 defence, the judge advocate summons them all, and this 
 is done at the earliest practicable moment, to avoid any 
 delay in the conduct of the trial ; l^ut with this limita- 
 tion, that he shall not summon any wdtness at the ex- 
 ])euse of the United States, nor any officer of the army, 
 without the order of the court, unless satisfied that his 
 testimony is material and necessary to the ends of jus- 
 tice.*'* There is no sj3ecific form of summons to witnesses 
 lai'd down either by law or regulation, but it is essen- 
 tial, in ^vhatever terms prepared, that it be drawn up 
 with care and })recision. 
 
 Duties. A judge advocate appears at a court-martial, 
 in three distinct characters ; fii'st^ As an officer of the 
 court, for the purpose of recording its j^roceedings, and 
 administering the regular oaths ; second,, as the ad- 
 viser of the court in matters of form and law; thinly 
 as public prosecutor. In the first of these characters 
 he is, of course, subject to the orders of the court, who 
 may direct their proceedings to be conducted and re- 
 corded in any manner which they think 2)roper ; but in 
 the other two characters, the court can exercise no con- 
 
 * Revised regulations, p. 125. 
 
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE. 199 
 
 trol wliatever over liim, as in tlie performance of tliose 
 duties lie must be allowed to act according to liis own 
 judgment and discretion.* 
 
 Record. Tlie record of the court sliall be clear and 
 legibly written ; as far as practicable without erasures 
 or interlineations. Tlie pages to be numbered, witli a 
 margin of one inch on the left side of each page, and at 
 the top of the odd and bottom of the even pages; 
 through this last margin the sheets to be stitched to- 
 gether; the documents accompanying the proceedings 
 to be noted and marked in such manner as to afford 
 easy reference.f It is a good rule that all loritten evi- 
 dence which tends to prove the charge ought to be 
 recorded in the place where it directly applies, but such 
 documents as are only introduced for explanation or 
 illustration, should be annexed to the record as an ap- 
 pendix. 
 
 Ill the interval between the adjournment on one day 
 and the next meeting of the court, it is the duty of the 
 judge advocate to make a fair copy of the proceedings. 
 This he continues to do to the conclusion of the trial. 
 At the meeting of the court he submits the/«/r copy of 
 the last day's proceedings to the presiding officer, who 
 either examines it himself, or requests a member to do 
 so, while the judge advocate reads over in open court, 
 in presence of the accused, the record he took of the 
 previous day's proceedings. The court may dispense 
 with the reading, but it is highly desirable that it 
 should be read, that errors and omissions in the fair 
 copy may be corrected, and tlie evidence be more deeply 
 impressed on the minds of the members. 
 
 * Kennedy. f Revised regulations, p. 125. 
 
200 MILITARY LAW AND COriiTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 Reply. After tlie accused has closed the defence, the 
 judge advocate lias the undoubted ricjlit of reply. This 
 right hokls, where the prisoner has examined witnesses, 
 or introduced documentary evidence, or has in his ad- 
 dress oj^ened new facts upon his own assertion, or upon 
 documents which he may read though not proved in 
 evidence. AVhere a reply is desired, the court Tvdll 
 always grant the judge advocate a reasonable time for 
 its preparation. 
 
 T;y"tler observes, that in complicated cases, in circum- 
 stantial proof, in cases where the evidence is contradic- 
 tory, it is expedient that the judge advocate should 
 arrange and methodize the body of the evidence, ajDjDly- 
 ing it distinctly to the focts of the charge (specification) 
 and bringing home to the prisoner the result of the 
 proof against him, balanced with the evidence of excul- 
 pation or alleviation. In ordinary cases, a charge of this 
 kind is not so necessary. 
 
 Besides applying the evidence fairly to each side of 
 the question, the judge advocate should inform the court 
 as to the legal bearing of the evidence ; for it may be 
 that the evidence shall morally satisfy the minds of the 
 com't and still maybe deficient legally. He should not 
 assume facts to be proved, tliat should be left to the de- 
 cision of the court; he should show tlie relative bearing 
 of the entire evidence, 1 nit should give no opinion. The 
 members, and they alone, are, by their oaths, to deter- 
 mine according to the evidence. 
 
 Control over Judge Advocate. The court can exer- 
 cise no control over the judge advocate in mattei*s of 
 form and law. It is his duty to instruct and counsel the 
 court in matters of necessary form, and to explain such 
 
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE. 201 
 
 points of law as may arise during the proceedings, and 
 liis own discretion mnst be his guide in determining 
 when such a course may be seasonable or necessary. 
 
 His Opieiion. Whenever his opinion is demanded by 
 the court, he is bound to give it freely and candidly, 
 and even when not demanded, it is his duty in every 
 case to caution the court against any violation of mate- 
 rial justice, and if his counsel l)e disregarded, his opin- 
 ion must be recorded at length in the proceedings, to- 
 gether vdth the action of the court thereon. This is 
 necessary, that the reviewing authority may have a full 
 and complete record of all that transpu'ed upon the 
 trial, for his information and guidance, and that the 
 judge advocate may stand absolved from all imputa- 
 tions of failure in his duty of giving counsel, and the 
 error or ^\Tong committed, be chargeable to the proper 
 source. 
 
 De Hart says : " It thus seems to be a well-settled 
 point, that whenever any thing occurs in the progress 
 of a trial, which calls for the declaration of an opinion 
 of the judge advocate, it is proper that such opinion 
 should be entered on the record." Whenever the court, 
 refuses tp adopt the opinions of the judge advocate in- 
 volving important points of law bearing upon the case 
 the grounds upon which their decision rests should also 
 be recorded. 
 
 When the court is cleared for deliberation on the 
 finding and sentence, the duty of the judge advocate is 
 merel}' that of recorder, and he abstains from intimating, 
 in any manner, his judgment as to the guilt or innocence 
 of the accused. If, at this stage of the proceedings, his 
 opinion be asked, it shall be given, or should he notice 
 
202 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 auy irregularity or illegality in the fiiidiug or any de\da- 
 tion from tlie letter of tlie law in passing sentence, it is 
 clearly Lis duty to point out the error. 
 
 Proceedings. The court having concluded its labors, 
 the record of the proceedings must be authenticated by 
 the signatures of the president and judge advocate, who 
 shall also certify, in like manner, the sentence pro- 
 nounced l)y the court in each case. 
 
 The judge advocate shall transmit the proceedings, 
 without delay, to the officer ha^dng authority to confii-m 
 the sentence, who shall state, at the end of the proceed- 
 ings in each case, his decision and orders thereon. 
 
 The original proceedings of all general coui'ts-martial, 
 after the decision on them of the reviewing authority, 
 and all ^proceedings that require the decision of the 
 President, under the 65th and 89th articles of war, and 
 copies of all oi'ders confirming or disapproving, or re- 
 mitting the sentences of courts-martial, and all official 
 communications for the judge ad\ocate of the army, will 
 be addressed to " The Adjutant-General of tlie Army^ 
 War Department^'' marked on the cover, " Judge Advo- 
 catey"" 
 
 The i^roceedings of garrison and regiment^^l coui'ts- 
 martial will be transmitted without delay by the garri- 
 son or regimental commander, to the department head- 
 quarters for the supervision of the department com- 
 mander. 
 
 By the original proceedings is meant the fair copy^ 
 which has been daily submitted for the inspection of the 
 court, and has been corrected in its presence. 
 
 Time of Attendance. The certificate of the judge 
 
 * Revised regulations, p. 126, and 90tb article of war. 
 
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE. 203 
 
 advocate shall be evidence of tlie time of attendance on 
 the court of the members and witnesses, and of the time 
 he himself was necessarily employed in the duty of the 
 court. Of the time occupied in travelling, each officer 
 ^\•ill make his own certificate. 
 
 Before Courts of Inquiry. Tlie specified duties of a 
 judge advocate before a court of incj^uiry, are, "as a re- 
 corder, to reduce the })roceedings and evidence to 
 writing ;" — in conjunction Avith the president to authen- 
 ticate the proceedings by his signature ; — to administer 
 an oath to the members ; and himself to swear that he 
 will " accurately and impartially record the proceedings 
 of the court and the evidence to be o-iven in the case in 
 
 o 
 
 hearing." He also administers to the witnesses the same 
 oath that is taken before a court-martial. He summons 
 all witnesses required for the investigation of the cir- 
 cumstances, regarding wliich the court is assembled, and 
 gives notice to the party interested of the time and place 
 of meetino-. 
 
 o 
 
 The object of ti»e court Ijeing mainly to gather and 
 methodize information, so as to enal)le the convening 
 authority to arrive at correct conclusions, it becomes 
 the duty of the judge advocate to examine the witnesses, 
 and lend his exertions to attain that object, by a search- 
 ing and scrutinizing inquir}^ into the minutiae of the 
 subject ordered to be investigated, so that the entire 
 circumstances of the case may l^e laid before tlie con- 
 vening authority in a clear and explicit form. 
 
 As the proceedings of a court of inquiry^, by having 
 the witnesses sworn, partake of a judicial character, the 
 judge advocate must be considered as a legal adviser to 
 the court, and he is therefore bound to see that no im- 
 
204 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 proper evidence is admitted, and to put tlie court on 
 tlieir guard against tlie commission of legal errors. " 
 
 iTiode of Proceeding. The court having convened, 
 the judge advocate shall, in presence of the accused, if 
 any, read the order constituting the court, and will then 
 ask the accused if he has any objections to any of the 
 members, which question with the answer must be re- 
 corded. 
 
 The court is then sivorn by the judge advocate, and 
 the latter is sworn by the presiding officer. 
 
 The judge advocate now reads any special instructions 
 that may have been given to the court for their guidance 
 and government, and this act will also be recorded. 
 
 The coui't having decided, ^\^th closed doors, upon the 
 hest mode of procedure, the doors are opened and the 
 parties recalled. The witnesses are next examined, and 
 their evidence taken down in the same manner and 
 order as is observed on trials by courts-martial ; and a 
 fair cop]) of the proceedings made from day to day, 
 which is read over and connected at theii* next meeting. 
 
 The business of the court having been concluded, the 
 record of the proceedings will be ai(the?Hicated hj the 
 signatures of the president and judge advocate, and be 
 transmitted by the latter to the authority ordering the 
 court. 
 
 * De Hart, p. 332. 
 
CIIAPTEK XIX. 
 
 EEMARKS ON ARTICLES OF WAR. 
 
 mutiny or Sedition. " Art. 7. Any officer or soldier 
 wlio shall Legiii, excite, cause, or join in any mutiny or 
 sedition in any troop or company in the service of the 
 United States, or in any party, post, detachment, or 
 guard, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as 
 by a court-martial shall be inflicted. 
 
 " Art. 8. Any officer, non-commissioned officer, or sol- 
 dier, who, being present at any mutiny or sedition, does 
 not use his utmost endeavor to suj)press the same, or 
 coming to the knowledge of any intended mutiny, does 
 not, witiiout delay, give information thereof to his com- 
 manding officer, shall be j)unished by the sentence of a 
 court-martial witli death, or otherwise, according to the 
 nature of his offence. 
 
 " Art. 9. Any officer or soldier Avho shall strike his 
 supei'ior officer, or draw or lift uj^ any weapon, or offer 
 any violence against him, being in the execution of his 
 office, on any pretence whatsoever, or shall disobey any 
 lawful command of his superior officer, shall suffer 
 death, or such other punishment as shall, according to 
 the nature of his offence, be inflicted upon liim by the 
 sentence of a court-martial." 
 
 By mutiny is understood resistance to lawful military 
 authority : this resistance may be either active or pas- 
 
206 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 sive. It implies not only extreme iDsubordination, as 
 individually resisting by force, or collectively rising 
 against or opposing military authority, hut a murmur- 
 ing or muttering against the exercise of authority, tend- 
 ing to create disquiet and dissatisfaction in the ann}-. 
 It is not, therefore, necessarily an aggregate offence 
 committed by many individuals, or by more than one. 
 " It may originate and conclude with a single person ; 
 and be as complete vdih one actor in it, as one thou- 
 sand."* 
 
 By ■sedition is meant resistance to the government or 
 civil authorities, necessarily involving, or resulting in 
 insubordination to military authority. 
 
 The cruue of mutiny or sedition must be proved by 
 acts, or bywords in connection with acts, for no one can 
 be convicted of having l)egun, excited, caused, or joined 
 in any mutiny or sedit.on, unless it be proved that said 
 crime was actually committed. 
 
 The act of heg inning any mutiny is an overt act, and 
 the direct employment of force against authority, as 
 where a j^rivate soldier, when on guard dut}', sta1 )s with 
 a bayonet the officer commanding the said guard ; the 
 exciting to any mutiny, though it may not insure the 
 completion of the act intended, is still an act of mutiny, 
 as where an officer endeavors by words or gestures to 
 dissuade the men from doing a duty they are ordered to 
 perform ; the causing any mutiny, 1 )y agitating the pro- 
 joriety or impropriety of the measures of their superiors, 
 — such conduct tendhio; to create discontent amono; the 
 soldiers ; the joining in any mutiny, as where soldiers 
 join, actively, in any act of insul)ordination or mutiny, 
 
 * Samuel, p. 257. 
 
EEMAKKS ON ARTICLES OF WAR. 207 
 
 or, passively, do not use tlieir utmost endeavors to sup- 
 press the same, or coming to tlie knowledge of any in- 
 tended mutiny, do not at once give information thereof 
 to tlieii' command ins: officer. 
 
 striking a Superior Ofllccr, beings in the Execution 
 of iiis Office. That the violence offered to a superior 
 must be while in the execution of his office, is fixed as 
 an inseparable part of the oftence, and must be proved, 
 in order to subject the accused to the severe penalty 
 contemplated by the article. To be in the execution 
 of his office does not necessarily require the. officer, or 
 non-commissioned officer, to be in the actual performance 
 of a prescribed duty, as parade, drill, or guard, for what- 
 ever the law, regulations, or custom of service require 
 of him, that it is his duty to perform, and while so em- 
 ployed he is in the execution of his office and entitled to 
 the protection of the law. 
 
 To constitute the offence, it must appear that the 
 offender was aware of the rank or superiority of the 
 superior. An officer may be in the execution of his 
 office in plain clothes, and to prove the crime in such a 
 case would necessitate the proof, that the ofl^nder, at the 
 time, was aware that his Aaolence was directed toward 
 his superior officer.* When the charge is thus fully 
 made out by evidence, the mere act of drawing or lift- 
 ing up a weapon against a superior, is mutiny^ and pun- 
 ishable by death at the discretion of the court. 
 
 It may be well to remark, that mutinous conduct is 
 not one of the nominated offences in the articles of war, 
 and cannot be prosecuted under either of the three mu- 
 tiny articles above quoted. It can only be taken cogni- 
 
 * Simmons, p. 298. 
 
208 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 zance of by a coui-t-martial, wlieu, in terms of tlie gen- 
 eral article, it is further described in tlie cliarge, " to the 
 prejudice of good order and military discipline." 
 
 Disobeying^ any L.aAvfiil Coniinaiicl of his Superior Offi- 
 cer. Disoljcdience of orders is reckoned among the grav- 
 est military crimes, and as such is made a penal offence 
 by the 9th article. A refusal to ol)ey any order is un- 
 doubtedly mutiny, although a failure or refusal to obey 
 one, or two, or any numl)er, more or less, of special 
 orders for reasons in each case, may be consistent with 
 a general submission to military authority, and may 
 argue no intent to resist or subvert it. 
 
 It was announced in orders, by direction of the 
 general-in-chief, that under the 9th and 67th articles, the 
 jurisdiction of the inferior coui'ts-martial does not ex- 
 tend to cases where the offence is specifically charged 
 as " disobedience of orders." The following decision 
 upon the same point, was subsequently made T)y the 
 secretary of war. " The question is not clear upon the 
 authority of the text ^^Titers. But I incline to the 
 opinion of the general-in-chief Certainly, if 'disobe- 
 dience of orders' means ' disobedience of a lawful com- 
 mand of a superior officer in the execution of his office,' 
 it is a ' capital case,' and not triable by a garrison court, 
 and however that may be, the order of the general-in- 
 chief is mandatory to garrison commanders, and does, in 
 effect, forbid any such commander to send any such case 
 to a garrison court, or to execute theii' sentence in such 
 
 ciiaiieiiges. "Art. 25. No officer or soldier shall 
 leno-e to another officer or soldiei 
 
 o 
 * G. 0., War Department. November 1st, 1858. 
 
 send a challenge to another officer or soldier, to fight a 
 
EEMAEKS ON AETICLES OF WAR. 209 
 
 duel, or accept a cliallenge if sent, upon pain, if a com- 
 missioned officer, of being cashiered ; if a non-commis- 
 sioned officer or soldier, of suffering corporeal punish- 
 ment, at the discretion of a coui't-martial. 
 
 " Art. 28. Any officer or soldier who shall up 
 braid another for refusins: a challensre, shall himself be 
 punished as a challenger ; and all officers and soldiers 
 are hereby discharged from any disgrace or opinion of 
 disadvantage which might arise from theii' having re- 
 fused to accept of challenges, as they will only have 
 acted in obedience to the laws, and done their duty as 
 good soldiers who subject themselves to discipline." 
 
 In a recent case. Colonel S. was brought to trial be- 
 fore a general court-martial, charged with \dolation of 
 the above-quoted articles of war. 
 
 1st. In sending a challenge to General II. to fight a 
 duel, in words as follows : 
 
 "Washington, D. C, Febriiarij 15, 1858. 
 " SiE : As more than twenty-four hours have passed, 
 since my note to you of yesterday, I have a right to 
 presume that you do not intend to answer it ; I have 
 therefore to invite you to leave this city with me to- 
 morrow morning, to go to any place you may designate. 
 I send this note privately to avoid committing any 
 friend as long as possible. An early answer is re- 
 quested. 
 
 " I am, with due respect, 
 
 "E. V. S , 
 
 " Col. \st Cwvalry. 
 
 " Brevet Brig.-Gen. W. S. H , 
 
 " Col 2d Dragoons:' 
 14 
 
210 MILITARY LAW AND COUKTS-JIARTIAL. 
 
 2d. In upbraiding General H. for refusing to fight a 
 duel, in words as follows : 
 
 " WASHmGTON, D. C, Fthruary^ 16, 1858. 
 " SiE : I received witli great surprise your note of last 
 evening, and liave only to say to you ; that a man who 
 could insult a brother officer from an official covert, and 
 afterwards refuse to apologize, or to give him that satis- 
 faction which he had a right to demand, is utterly un- 
 worthy of any farther notice from me. 
 
 " I am, tfec, 
 
 "E. Y. S- 
 
 " Brevet Brig. Gen. W. S. H " Col. \st Cavalry. 
 
 " Col. U Bragoonsr 
 
 The verdict of the court was an acquittal of both 
 charges and their specifications. 
 
 The secretaiy of war, reviemng the proceedings, 
 says: 
 
 " Colonel S 's note of the ir)th February is a chal- 
 lenge within the meaning of the article of war. The 
 military authorities, and the decisions of courts-martial 
 are clear in this regard. They lay down, what is indeed 
 the necessary doctrine to give eflfect to the law, that 
 '' no particular phraseology^ tw set form is necessary to a 
 challenge;'^ nor ^ a formal invitation to fight;'' but '« 
 mere hint or suggestion^ is sufficient, and even ' such a 
 defiance as casts the burden on the other party.^ As 
 challenges are in violation of law, ingenuity is not uncom- 
 monly exercised to avoid a plain expros^sion of their pur- 
 pose. But these are artifices to defeat the law, which 
 courts of law will never favor. And when the meaning 
 
EEMAEKS 01^ ARTICLES OF WAR. 211 
 
 is SO clear as to be intelligible to the party who receives 
 the challenge, it answers its purpose, and is intelligible 
 to the tribunal which tries it. In this case, however, 
 the challenge is plainly expressed ; even if it were not 
 conclusively interpreted by the rest of the correspon- 
 dence, and expressly as ' a demand of satisfaction^ 
 
 " The doctrine of the findings in this case, would ren- 
 der the article of war void and inoperative, by indicat- 
 ing a mode of doing mthout breach of the law what 
 it is the exact purpose of the law to forbid. 
 
 " A rigid enforcement of strict discij^line in the army 
 is the most essential requisite for its honor and efficiency. 
 If the bonds of discipline are loosened, it is only a ques- 
 tion of time when the army will become a mob, and 
 public opinion will ascribe to it that character, even be- 
 fore it would be fairly entitled to it."* 
 
 OflTcnces agaiiisitt Citizens, &c. " Art. 32, Every officer 
 commanding in quarters, gamsons, or on the march, 
 shall keejD good 6rder, and, to the utmost of his 
 power, redress all abuses or disorders, which may be 
 committed by any officer or soldier under his command ; 
 if, upon complaint made to him of officers or soldiers 
 beating or otherwise ill-treating any person, or disturb- 
 ing fairs or markets, or of committing any kind of riots, 
 to the disquieting of the citizens of the United States, 
 he, the said commander, who shall refuse or omit to see 
 justice done to the offender or offenders, and reparation 
 made to the party or parties injured, as far as part of 
 the offender's pay shall enable him or them, shall, upon 
 proof thereof, be cashiered, or otherwise punished, as a 
 general court-martial shall direct. 
 
 * G. 0. No. 2, War Department. March IGth. 1858. 
 
212 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 " Art. 33. When any commissioned officer or soldier 
 shall be accused of a capital crime, or of having used 
 violence, or committed any offence against the person or 
 property of any citizen of any of the United States, such 
 as is j)unishal>le by the known laws of the land, the 
 commanding officer and officers of eveiy regiment, troop, 
 or company, to which the person or persons so accused 
 shall belong, are hereby required, upon application duly 
 made by, or in behalf of the j^arty or parties injui'ed, to 
 use their utmost endeavors to deliver over such accused 
 person or persons to the civil magistrate, and likewise 
 to be aiding and assisting to the officers of justice in 
 apprehending and securing the person or persons so 
 accused, in order to bring him or them to trial. If any 
 commanding officer or officers shall "^^-ilfully neglect, or 
 shall refuse, upon the application aforesaid, to deliver 
 over such accused person or persons to the ci%41 magis- 
 trates, or to be, aiding and assisting to the officers of jus- 
 tice in apprehending such person or persons, the officer 
 or officers so offending shall be cashiered." 
 
 The 32d article authorizes and requires every com- 
 manding officer to redress all abuses or disorders which 
 may be committed by any officer or soldier of his com- 
 mand, to the disquieting of the citizens of the United 
 States. 
 
 By the 33d article, it is made a condition precedent 
 to his being delivered up, that the person called for 
 shall be accused of some offence such as is " punishable 
 by the known laws of the land." To the men under 
 his command, so long as they continue to discharge their 
 duties, the superior owes a duty of protection, which is 
 fii'st in point of time and highest in obligation, and he 
 
EEMAEKS ON ARTICLES OF WAR. 213 
 
 has no right to withdraw it except as specified in the 
 article. A mere demand based upon the fact that an 
 offence has been committed against the person or prop- 
 erty of a citizen, is not sufficient. The offence must be 
 specified, and it is his duty to satisfy himself by a care- 
 ful scrutiny of the circumstances, that the offence is one 
 contemplated by the article. He should be furnished 
 A\dth the specific charge, and the name of the injured 
 party ; and an affidavit should accompany the demand, 
 giving all the information necessary to a fall compre- 
 hension of the case. 
 
 The application must be made " by, or in behalf of 
 the party or parties injured." In the case of murder, 
 the party injured cannot act. In his behalf, or in that of 
 the society injured in his person, it is the right of any 
 and every citizen to move the courts of the country to 
 a2')ply the laws of the land to the criminal, and a com- 
 manding officer would scarcely hesitate, in such case, to 
 surrender the accused to the civil authorities. 
 
 Under the supj^tosition that the act is internal to the 
 arm}', as that an officer on duty kills a superior officer, 
 the act, though mutiny by military law, would be 
 murder by the ordinary law, and as such be triable by 
 a civil court. "There the whole society is a party in- 
 jured, and the public prosecutor may justly demand 
 that the criminal shall be held amenaljle to the aggrieved 
 majesty of the law of the land, either with or without a 
 technical conformity of proceeding to the letter of the 
 articles of war."* 
 
 Embezzlement. Art. 39. Every officer, wlio shall be 
 convicted before a court-martial, of having embezzled, 
 
 * Opinions, April 7 th, 1854. 
 
214 MILITARY LAW AND COUKTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 or misapplied, any money witli whicli lie may have been 
 intrusted, for the payment of the men under his com- 
 mand, or for enlisting men into the service, or for other 
 pui'poses, if a commissioned officer, shall be cashiered, 
 and compelled to refund the money ; if a non-commis- 
 sioned officer, shall be reduced to the ranks, be put under 
 stoppages until the money be made good, and suffer 
 such corporeal punishment as such court-martial shaU 
 dii-ect. 
 
 In the case of Captain T. J. who was tried before a 
 general court-martial, on the charge of " embezzlement of 
 public money intrusted to liim^^'' the court found him 
 guilty of portions of each of the first two specifications, 
 but attached no criminality thereto, and therefore acquit- 
 ted him of the charge. 
 
 The follomng were the orders thereon from the War 
 Department* 
 
 " The verdict of the 1st and 2d specifications to the 
 1st charge does not express the meaning of the court. 
 For surely a coui't sworn to administer the law cannot 
 mean to return a verdict which is a pure and simple 
 contradiction of the law. The court cannot have meant 
 to declare that it is not embezzlement to render a fiilse 
 voucher for payment of money not paid when the law 
 declares that it is embezzlement. The court must there- 
 fore have meant that the accused is not guilty of the 
 facts charged in the legal sense ; that he did not w^ilfully 
 and designedly render a false voucher. That this is 
 what the verdict meant would also appear from the rul- 
 ing on the plea in bar, and from the evidence on the 
 record to the facts. The accused pleaded, with other 
 
 * G. 0. No. 1. War Department, January ISth, 18GL 
 
EEMAEKS ON ARTICLES OF WAK. 215 
 
 matters in bar, that tlie act of Congress of August G, 
 18-46, defining embezzlement, is the law in tlie trial of 
 indictments in the civil courts of the United States, but 
 is not the law of eml^ezzlement in their courts-martial. 
 The court, properly, overruled the plea. And it is in 
 place here to remark, that the rendering of false vouch- 
 ers was always evidence of embezzlement at common 
 law, and the effect of the recent statute, upon that point, 
 is merely to relieve the prosecution of the necessity of 
 ascertaining the exact amount overcharged and embez- 
 zled by making any overcharge an embezzlement of the 
 whole amount of the voucher. The evidence on the 
 record which also goes to explain the verdict, is this : 
 testimony for the defence was l^rought to show that the 
 accused gave his clerk for the claimant a check for $2,000, 
 and that the account was made up by the clerk and 
 receipted by the claimant for a larger amount than paid 
 "v^dthout the knowledsre of the accused. If this evidence 
 
 o 
 
 satisfied the court, they ought to have rendered a general 
 verdict of not guilty ; or a special verdict explaining the 
 facts in their legal relation, and not the verdict they 
 have rendered, finding the facts as charged, and rejecting 
 and denying the necessary and legal conclusion from 
 them. 
 
 "The record discloses very extraordinary errors in the 
 proceedings. The prosecution oficred in evidence the 
 receipts designated in the specification to the 2d charge, 
 to which the defence objected ' on the ground that they 
 were part of, and attached to the proceedings of the 
 court of inquiry," and the court sustained the objection. 
 The prosecution then ofiVred parole evid(,*nce of their 
 contents; the defence objected, and the court overruled 
 
216 MILITAEY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 the objection. In these decisions the court contrived to 
 vioLite the plainest rules of e\ddence. It is really unac- 
 countable how a court could conceive that evidence, 
 documentary or oral, should be rejected in one coiul; 
 because it had been admitted in another court, or that 
 a document being incompetent, its contents by parole 
 could be admitted. 
 
 "Again; the voucher for $2,452.70 alleged to be 
 overcharged being in proof for the prosecution, and for 
 the defence that $2,000 had been paid, the prosecution 
 asked ivhat part of that payment was on account of that 
 voucher. The defence objected. That the inc^uiry was 
 pertinent, that it went precisely to the gist of the mat- 
 ter on trial, would seem to be obvious ; and, moreover, 
 the prosecution explained, that the claimant had, in 
 fact, signed other vouchers, and the point was how 
 much had been paid on that voucher. Nevertheless the 
 court sustained the objection and ruled out the inquiry. 
 Then the prosecution asked if the icliole of the $2,000 
 ic as paid on that voucher. The defence objected (what 
 was clear enough), that that was matter just ruled out. 
 But now the coui't overrule the objection and admit the 
 answer, and allow it to be shown that ''the whoW of 
 the $2,000 was not paid on that voucher, though they 
 would not allow it to be sho^vn ' what pari) of it was so 
 paid ; and conse(piently what part of the voucher had 
 been paid, and that material inquiry they left as much 
 in the dark as they found it. 
 
 " Errors such as these are inexcusable. 
 
 " This record presents, however, a much more import- 
 ant subject for the animadversion of the department and 
 the information of the army. This accused and some 
 
REMARKS ON ARTICLES OF WAR, 21*7 
 
 other disbursing officers have been charged with render- 
 ing vouchers of payment, when, in fact, the payments 
 had not been made. Their defence is, that having no 
 public money, they had given the public creditor, for 
 indispensable supplies or services, certificates of public 
 debt, or pledged their personal credit, and then took his 
 receipt to draw the money on it and apply it according 
 to the liabilities so incurred. It is sufficient to say that 
 the law positively forbids such vouchers ; that it makes 
 it felony to render a voucher of money paid when it is 
 not paid ; that the proper mode of drawing public 
 money for disbursements is by requisition and not on 
 false vouchers ; and that the department can accept no 
 excuse for a practice which, with whatever good inten- 
 tions, is forbid by law, and tends to discredit all public 
 accounts." 
 
 Drunk on Duty. " Art. 45. Any commissioned officer 
 who shall be found drunk on his guard, party, or other 
 duty, shall be cashiered. Any non-commissioned officer 
 or soldier so offending shall suffer such corporeal pun- 
 is. iment as shall be inflicted by the sentence of a court- 
 martial." 
 
 The following was the decision of the AVar Depart- 
 ment in the cases of Captain S. and Lieutenant M., who 
 were tried on the charge of " Drinikenness on dutyy 
 
 " These cases raise the question whether the parties 
 on trial were on duty in the sense of the 45th article of 
 war. In one sense, ' on duty' is in contradistinction to 
 ' on leave of absence.' But the expression aj)pears to 
 have a narro\ver meanini;^ in the 45th article of war. 
 The old la^v^ in this matter ran in these words : ' guard, 
 party, or other duty under arms.' The omission of the 
 
218 MILITARY LAW AKD COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 words ' under arms' from tlie present law, ^vitli intention 
 to include all descriptions and circumstances of duty, 
 yet still leaves excepted those other occasions in camp 
 or garrison, when the officer is, in the ordinary language 
 of service, 'off duty.' It is unnecessary to add that 
 drunkenness off duty, according to the circumstances, 
 may be cognizable by a coui't-martial, but not under the 
 45th article of war. What then are the conditions 
 which bring the offence under this article ? It is diffi- 
 cult to make a general definition which shall be precise 
 and accurate. The law leaves it, as other general words 
 of statutes, to judicial interpretation in the particular 
 case. In one of these cases the coui't find that an officer, 
 drunk at a dancing party, when engaged in no act of 
 duty, and called on for the performance of no duty, was 
 drunk on duty, because it was during his tour as officer 
 of the day, and the same court find, in the other case, 
 that an officer is not drunk on duty, when being sent to 
 execute a duty requii'ing his attention jfrom day to day, 
 he gets di'unk after he has commenced it, and is thus 
 rendered unable to continue it ; or, when having receiv- 
 ed an urgent and peremptory order, calling for immedi- 
 ate execution, he is unable to execute it, l)ecause of his 
 drunkenness. The department holds that all these are 
 cases of drunkenness on duty."* 
 
 And in a subsequent case the following were the 
 orders thereon : 
 
 " The court suggest no explanation of the distinction 
 they take that the accused was Ulrunh in the actual 
 execution of his- office^ but not ^dru/ih on dutij in the 
 meaning of the article of war. The department cannot 
 
 * G. 0. No. 7, War Department, June 18th, 1856. 
 
 I 
 
REMARKS ON ARTICLES OF WAR. 219 
 
 discover any just ground for tlie distinction, wliicli is 
 even expressed by a contradiction. Tlie article of war 
 must be taken to use its words in tlieir plain meaning. 
 If it be tbe idea of tlie court, tliat because certain duties 
 are specified in the article, its purview is limited to 
 tliose and like duties, tliey impose a restriction on tlie 
 general Avords that follow the specification, which the 
 words themselves do not carry, and which is inconsist- 
 ent vdth the policy and history of the statute. If by 
 specifying ' guard or party,' only like duties of special 
 detail are meant, the law is greatly defective, and dis- 
 regards the most important occasions of military service, 
 where the whole are under arms, as parade, review, drill, 
 or battle. The former statute specified ' guard, party, 
 or other duty under arms.' The omission of the words 
 ' under arms,' removed one restriction without introduc- 
 ing a new one. The specification and the general ex- 
 pression each have their appropriate office. For examj)le, 
 a case specified is that of an officer of the guard, during 
 his tour, even when engaged in no act of duty ; and the 
 general words provide for all actual occasions of duty. 
 The construction of this article of war promulgated from 
 the War Department in general order No. 7, 1856, is 
 here affirmed; also the rule announced in that order- 
 and in general order No. 8, of that year, to the effect, 
 that where a charge is laid expresshj and exclusively 
 under a particular article, the finding of the court is 
 confined to that article. 
 
 " The court refused to admit on their record an argu- 
 ment of the judge advocate, objecting to an apj^lication 
 by the defence for delay. It was the duty of the judge 
 advocate to make the objection, and the argument by 
 
220 JIILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 wliicli lie sustained it was very proper. It was a part 
 of the proceedings wliicli ought to have been entered on 
 their record."* 
 
 Corresponding witli the Enemy. "Art. 57. Whosoever 
 shall be convicted of holding correspondence "with, or 
 giving intelligence to the enemy, either directly or indi- 
 rectly, shall suffer death, or such other j^unisliment as 
 shall be ordered by the sentence of a court-martial." 
 
 By the 57th article of the act of Congress entitled 
 An Act for establishing Rules and Articles for the gov- 
 ernment of the Armies of the United States, approved 
 April 10, 1806, "holding correspondence with, or giving 
 intelligence to the enemy, either directly or indirectly," 
 is made punishal)le by death, or such other punishment 
 as shall be ordered by the sentence of a court -mai-tial. 
 Public safety requii^es strict enforcement of this article. 
 It is therefore ordered that all correspondence and com- 
 munication, verbally or by writing, printing or tele- 
 graphing, respecting oj^erations of the army or military 
 movements on land or water, or respecting the troops, 
 camps, arsenals, intrenchments, or military affairs, within 
 the several military districts, 1)y which intelligence shall 
 be, directly or indirectly, given to the enemy, without 
 the authority and sanction of the general in command, 
 be and the same are absolutely prohibited, and from 
 and after the date of this order persons violating the 
 same mil be proceeded against under the 57th article 
 of war.f 
 
 Conduct Uiibccomiug an Offlcer and a Gcutlcinan. 
 "Art. 83. Any commissioned officer c-onvicted before a 
 
 * G. 0. No. 5, "War Department. May 23d, 1857. 
 
 f G. 0. No. 67, War Department, August 2Gth, 1861. 
 
EEMAEKS ON AETICLES OF WAE. 221 
 
 general court-martial of conduct unbecoming an officer 
 and a gentleman, sliall be dismissed the service." 
 
 In the case of an assistant surgeon of the army, who 
 was put upon his trial, charged with " conduct tmhecom- 
 ing an officer and a gentleman^^ the following orders 
 were issued by the secretary of war : 
 
 " When the proceedings in this case were first 
 submitted to the dei^artment, it seemed to it that the 
 finding of the court on the first charge was inconsistent 
 ^vith theii- finding on the specification to that charge, 
 and in order to afibrd the court an opportunity of re- 
 considering it, the case was remanded to them. They 
 have, however, thought proper to adhere to their former 
 decision. As the matter is altogether one of opinion, 
 the dej^artment will not interfere with that of the court. 
 It deems it proper, however, with reference to cases that 
 may hereafter arise, to make kno^vn its views on the 
 83d article of war, particularly as it appears that the 
 court have not only misconceived the meaning and in- 
 tent of the article, but j^erhaps its language. 
 
 "The court, in assigning its reasons for not applying 
 the article to this case, say, that the conduct of the ac. 
 cused 'was not of that enormity (scandalous and in- 
 famous) which was contemplated by the article in ques- 
 tion — such as degrades a man from the association of 
 gentlemen, <fec.' 
 
 " From these expressions the court were evidently of 
 opinion that a party cannot be convicted under the 83d 
 article of war, unless his conduct should be scandalous 
 and infamous. Such is not the opinion of the depart- 
 ment. The .words ' scandalous and infamous ' are not 
 to be found in the 83d article. On the contrary, those 
 
222 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 words were found in tlie old rules and articles of war, 
 as enacted in 1776, and revised in 1786, in tlie article to 
 which the 83d of the act now in force corresponds ; and 
 they were dropped at the revision by Congress in 1806, 
 when the existing law for the government of the army 
 was established. It cannot be doubted that this change 
 was designed. It is therefore equivalent to a declara- 
 tion by Congress that it should no longer be necessary 
 in order to bring an officer within the scope of that ar- 
 ticle that the act charged should be 'scandalous and 
 infamous,' j^ro^^ded it were ' unbecoming an officer and 
 a gentleman.' Nevertheless the court have referred to 
 these words as if they formed a j^art of the existing 
 law. 
 
 " An officer of the highest merit may, from indiscretion 
 or thoughtlessness, or fi'om momentary excitement, do 
 an act which all right-minded persons would consider 
 as highly unbecoming a gentleman, and yet if it in- 
 volved nothing dishonorable or morally A^Tong, he would 
 not thereby forfeit his character as a gentleman. 
 
 " Assuming the facts found by the court to be true, 
 the attack by Dr. S. upon Lieutenant S. was attended 
 with many aggravating circumstances which distinguish 
 it fi-om an ordinary assault and battery. The court 
 have found that it was premeditated and ' without good 
 and sufficient cause;' that Dr. S. struck Lieutenant S. 
 ' whilst he was looking in the opposite direction, and 
 not prepared for an assault,' and this in the * Aaew of 
 ladies, citizens, and soldiers.' 
 
 " Conduct like this would be considered highly repre- 
 hensible if conmiitted by any one in civil life; and the 
 department does not consider that either the character 
 
 I 
 
EEMAEKS ON ARTICLES OF WAR. 223 
 
 or the interests of the army would be promoted by 
 lowering tlie standard of propriety in the service, and 
 converting conduct improper in itself — and whether 
 committed by an officer or by any one else, into a mere 
 breach of military discipline. 
 
 "The court may possibly have considered that the 
 punishment prescribed by the 83d article was dispro- 
 portioned to the offence committed by Dr. S., but that 
 question was not submitted to them. The law in this 
 case affixes the punishment, and it is the province of 
 the revising power, and not that of the court, to miti- 
 gate it according to circumstances."* 
 
 * War Department, December 11th, 1852. 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 
 OF EVIDENCE. 
 
 It has been laid down as an indisputable principle 
 that whenever a legislative act erects a new judica 
 ture, without prescribing any particular rules of evi- 
 dence to it, the common law will supply its own rules, 
 from which it will not allow such newlv erected court 
 to depart. The rules of evidence, then, that obtain in 
 the criminal courts of the country, must be the guides 
 for courts-martial — the end sought for being truth, 
 these rules laid down for the attainment of that end 
 must be intrinsically the same in both cases. These 
 rules constitute the law of evidence, and involve the 
 quality, admissibility, and effect of evidence, and its ap- 
 plication to the j)urposes of truth. 
 
 Evidence is that wMch, exclusive of mere argument, 
 is legally offered to a court-martial, for the purpose of 
 enabling them to arrive at the truth in any matter sub- 
 mitted to their determination. 
 
 Evidence is of two kinds : Parol Evidence, consisting 
 of the viva voce examination of witnesses, and Written 
 
 Evidence. 
 
 All evidence may be divided into direct or positive 
 evidence, and indirect or presumptive evidence. 
 
 Direct or Positive Evidence is the testunony derived 
 from those who had actual knowledge of the principal 
 or disputed point. 
 
OF EVIDE^^CE. 225 
 
 Indirect or Presiiniptivc Evidence is wlicre an infer- 
 ence is made as to tlie trutli of the disputed fact, from 
 collateral facts ascertained by competent means. It is 
 an act of reasoning. 
 
 Proof is where the evidence submitted, is sufficient 
 to produce a conviction of the truth of the facts to be 
 established. 
 
 Proof may be either positive, or presumptive. 
 
 Positive Proof arises from direct evidence, which if 
 true, establishes or overthrows a fact immediately in 
 question. 
 
 Presumptive Proof arises from presumptive evidence, 
 that is, evidence which directly proves some fact, the 
 truth of which indirectly proves or disproves some other 
 fact which is immediately the subject of investigation. 
 
 The parties to a trial are not permitted to adduce every 
 description of evidence which, according to their own 
 notions, may be supposed to elucidate the matter in 
 issue ; if such a latitude were j^ermitted, evidence might 
 be often brought forward which would lead rather to 
 error than to truth, the attention of the court might be 
 diverted by the introduction of irrelevant or imma- 
 terial e^-idence, and the investigation extended to a most 
 inconvenient length. In order to guard against these 
 evils, certain rules for limiting and regulating the ad- 
 missibility of evidence have been established from time 
 to time.* 
 
 Admissibility of Evidence. It is the province of the 
 court to decide all questions on the admissibility of 
 evidence. Whether there is any evidence, is a question 
 for the court as judge, but whether the evidence is suf- 
 
 * 1 Phillipps, 3 ; Simmons, 434. 
 
 15 
 
226 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 fidelity is a question for tlie court as jury to determine ; 
 and this rule applies to the admissibility of every kind 
 of evidence, A\Titten as well as oral. 
 
 There are certain conditions precedent which are re- 
 quired to be observed, before evidence is to be submit- 
 ted for the consideration of the court. Thus an oath 
 or its equivalent, and competency in a -witness, are con- 
 ditions precedent to admitting viva voce evidence — the 
 burden of making out that a witness is incomj^etent, 
 lies on the party who makes the objection ; — so also is 
 the fact of a person's expectation of immediate death, 
 previously to the admission of proof of his dying dec- 
 larations; and the proof of requisite search, 2)re\*ious- 
 ly to the admission of secondary evidence of lost writ- 
 ings. 
 
 The law excludes some descriptions of evidence as 
 wholly improper to be submitted to the jury, and rejects 
 the testimony of certain persons, who are on this account 
 teiTued incompetent witnesses. The rules resj^ecting 
 these are chiefly founded on the consideration, that, in 
 the generality of instances, the testimony of those wit- 
 nesses would mislead the court, and it is obvious that 
 the proj^riety of the exclusion in each particular case, 
 must be judged of, according to the constitution of the 
 tribunal to which the evidence is submitted, and wdth 
 reference to the mode of proceeding before it.* 
 
 incoinpefciiey of Witnesses. There are foiu' cases in 
 which a witness is deemed inconqietent to give evi- 
 dence : 
 
 1st. When a witness labors under a defect of under- 
 standing. 
 
 * 1 Phillipps, 5-7. 
 
OF EVIDEIfCE. 227 
 
 2(1. AVlien, from defect of religious principle, lie does 
 not acknowledge the sanction of an oath. 
 
 3d. When his character is infamous in consequence 
 of a conviction of some crime. 
 
 4th. When he is interested, to any extent, in the 
 matter in issue. 
 
 The last tioo causes of incompetency have, from time 
 to time, and especially of late years, been very much 
 questioned. By the British Act of Parliament of Au 
 gust, 1843, these — with certain exceptions to the last — 
 \\ixxQ been abrogated. The act lays clown the broad 
 principle, that it is desirable that " the persons who are 
 appointed to decide upon the facts on issue should ex- 
 ercise their judgment on the credit of the witnesses ad- 
 duced, and on the truth of their testimony ;" and enacts 
 " that no person offered as a ^vitness shall hereafter be 
 excluded by reason of incapacity from crime or interest, 
 from giving evidence." A change tending directly to 
 the same conclusion, is now also taking place in all our 
 states, but reserving, however, the right of showing 
 such interest or con\dction for the purpose of affecting 
 the credibility of the witness. 
 
 1st. Of Inronipetciicy from Defect of Uii(1er«itaii(lin^. 
 Persons who have not the use of reason are from their 
 infii-mity utterly incapable of gi^^ng e^^dence, and are 
 therefore excluded as incompetent mtnesses. Such in- 
 competency may arise, where there is a natural de- 
 ficiency of the intellect, as in the case of idiots ; or 
 where the intellect has become disordered, as in tlie 
 case of insane persons ; or where the intellect is imma- 
 ture, as in the case of children. 
 
 An idiot is one who, from his nativity, is by a per- 
 
228 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 petnal infirmity non comjyos mentis ; such a person is 
 wholly incapable of giving evidence. But persons born 
 both deaf and dumb, though prima facie in contempla- 
 tion of law idiots, yet if it appears that they have suffi- 
 cient understanding and know the nature of an oath, 
 they may give evidence by signs, through the medium 
 of an interpreter ; or if they are able to write, their tes- 
 timony will be taken in ^\Titing, as the surest mode. A 
 person, however, who is born deaf, dumb, and blind, is 
 still looked upon by the law as in the same state as an 
 idiot, being supposed incapable of any understanding, 
 as wanting all those senses which furnish the human 
 mind with ideas. 
 
 Persons who have become permanently deranged in 
 intellect, are incompetent. A lunatic is a person who 
 enjoys intervals of sound mind, and may be admitted as 
 a ^^dtness in lucidis intervallis. He must of course 
 have been in possession of his intellect at the time of 
 the event to which he testifies, as well as at the time 
 of his examination; and it has been justly observed, 
 that it ought to appear that no serious fit of insanity has 
 intervened, so as to cloud his recollection, and cause him 
 to mistake the illusions of imagination for the events 
 he has witnessed. With regard to those persons who 
 are afflicted with monomania^ or an al^erration of mind 
 on one particular subject, not touching the matter in 
 question, and whose judgment in other respects is cor- 
 rect, the safest rule appears to be to exclude their testi- 
 mony, it being impossible to calculate with accuracy the 
 extent and influence of such a state of mind. 
 
 When a witness is ohjected to as incompetent on the 
 ground of mental deraTigement^ the party objecting has 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 229 
 
 the right to call witnesses and prove the fact. The 
 want of reason renders the person incompetent ; but this 
 incapacity must be shown to the court by proof, like 
 any other charge of incompetency. But when a person 
 is called as a witness, who is at the time in a state of 
 intoxication^ the court have the power to decide from 
 their own view of the situation of the witness offered, 
 whether he be intoxicated to such a degree that he ought 
 not to be heard. He is not incompetent, however, 
 though he may have been judicially declared an habit- 
 ual di'unkard, provided he be sober when called to tes- 
 tify ; and his intemperate habits cannot be proved in 
 order to impeach him. If proved intoxicated at the 
 time the events occurred, at least the credibility of his- 
 testimony might be questioned. 
 
 There is no precise age fixed, at which <;iiii<iren are 
 excluded from giving evidence. Their com})etency is 
 now regulated, not by their age, l)ut by the degree of 
 understanding which they appear to possess. It has 
 been decided that children of any age might be exam- 
 ined under oath, if ca})able of distinguishing between 
 good and evil, and possessing sufficient knowledge of 
 the nature and consequences of an oath ; but that they 
 cannot in any case be examined Avithout oath. This is 
 now the estaljlished rule, as well in criminal as in civil 
 cases, and it a})plies equally to capital offences and to 
 offences of an inferior nature. 
 
 In criminal cases, where a child is a necessary witness 
 for the prosecution, and a})pears not sufficiently to un- 
 derstand the nature and oblio-ation of an oath, it is com- 
 petent to the judge to postpone the trial, tliat the child 
 may be in the mean time properly instructed ; this can- 
 
230 MILITAEY LAW AND COUETS-MAKTIAL. 
 
 not l)e done after the prisoner is put u])on liis trial. It 
 lias been Leld, however, that the effect of the oath on 
 the conscience of a child should arise fi'om religious 
 feelings of a permanent nature, and not merely from in- 
 structions confined to the nature of an oath, which have 
 been communicated mth reference to the trial. 
 
 Independently of the sanction of an oath, the testi- 
 mony of children, after they have been sul)jected to 
 cross-examination, is often entitled to as much credit as 
 that of grown persons ; what is wanted in the perfec- 
 tion of the intellectual faculties, is sometimes more than 
 compensated 1jy the absence of motives to deceive.* 
 
 2d. Of IiKonipetency from Defect of Religious Prio- 
 cipie* The law requires that all mtnesses who are ex- 
 amined before a court-martial, shall give their evidence 
 under oath or affirmatio)i. In taking an oath, a witness 
 must be understood as making a formal and solemn 
 appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of the evi- 
 dence which he is about to give, and further as impre- 
 cating the Divine vengeance on his head, if what he 
 
 shall say be false. 
 
 An examination on oatli or affirmation implies that a 
 witness should go through a ceremony of a j^articular 
 import, and also, that he should acknowledge the effi- 
 cacy of tliat ceremony to speak the truth. It is there- 
 fore necessary, in order that a witness's testimony be 
 received, that he should believe in tlie existence^ of a 
 God by whom truth is enjoined and falsehood punished. 
 It is not sufficient that a witness believes himself Iwund 
 to speak the truth from a regard to character, or to the 
 eonnnon interests of society, or from a fear of the pun- 
 
 * 1 Phillipps, 10-U; Roscoe, 127. 
 
 J 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 231 
 
 isliment whicli the law inflicts upon persons guilty of 
 perjury. The true test, therefore, of a witness's compe- 
 tency in this regard, is, whether he believes in the exist- 
 ence of God, and that an ath is binding on the con- 
 science. It is not necessary that he should believe in a 
 future state of rewards and punishments. An atheist, 
 therefore, is excluded from being a witness. To prove 
 his belief that there is no God, it is competent to show 
 his settled and pi'evious declarations on the suljject. 
 Though the witness may have been for this reason in- 
 competent, yet if the objection has been removed by a 
 change of views he should be examined. 
 
 Doubts formerly existed with respect to Jews and the 
 inhabitants of countries professing religions different 
 from Christianity. But a wiser rule has since prevailed, 
 and it is now well settled that those infidels who 
 believe in a God who enjoins truth and punishes false- 
 hood in this world, though not believing in a future 
 state, may be admitted as witnesses, and sworn accord- 
 ing to the form which is authorized l)y their country or 
 their religion. 
 
 The only means of asocrtuiniiag the competency of a 
 witness, with reference to religious principle, is by ex- 
 amining the party himself The proper mode of examina- 
 tion is not to question the witness as to his particular 
 religious opinions, but to intpiire generally whether he 
 believes in the existence of a God, and whether he con- 
 siders the form of administering the oath to be such as 
 will be binding on his conscience. 
 
 The most correct andproj^er time for thus (^ .'-tioning 
 the witness is before the oath is administered ; but as it 
 may happen that the oath ma}' be administered in the 
 
232 MILITAIIY LAW AXD COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 usual form before the attention of the court is tlii'ected 
 to it, the party is not to be precluded ; but the witness 
 may, nevertheless, be afterward asked whether he con- 
 siders the oath he has taken as binding upon his con- 
 science. If he answer in the affii-mative, it would be 
 irrelevant to ask further, whether there be any other 
 mode of swearing more binding than that which he has 
 used. Such an acceptance of the oath not only imposes 
 upon the witness all its religious obligation, but, should 
 he violate its sanctions, subjects him also to the tem- 
 poral penalties consequent on the crime of perjmy.* 
 
 3d. Of Incompetency from Infamy. By the laws of 
 England this cause of incompetency has been abolished, 
 and the tendency of om* laws and decisions leads to the 
 belief that this will ere long be the case in this coun- 
 try. 
 
 The conviction of an infamous crime, followed by 
 judgment, disqualifies a person fi'om giving evidence; 
 and persons rejected for this cause, are said to be incom- 
 petent on account of the infamy of their character. Of 
 the crimes which incapacitate, the general description 
 includes treason and felony, and every species of the 
 crimen falsi. Thus, a conviction of forgery will dis- 
 qualify, as will also all offences tending to pervert the 
 administration of justice by falsehood or fraud. Of this 
 nature are perjury and subornation of perjury; bribing 
 a witness to absent himself, in order that he may not 
 give evidence ; conspiring to procure the absence of a 
 witness ; conspiring to accuse another person of a capital 
 offence. 
 
 A person incompetent to give oral evidence in court, 
 
 * Roscoo. 127-132. 
 
 i 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 233 
 
 on the ground of infamy, will not be allowed to have 
 his affidavit read, unless it be to defend himself against 
 a complaint. Having attested a wi'itten instrument as 
 a subscribing:: witness before conviction, his handwritina; 
 may be proved afterward, the same as if he were dead. 
 And though the general rule is, that in actions between 
 third persons his testimony must be excluded, he is al- 
 lowed, in cases where he is a i:)arty, to make affidavits in 
 exculpation or defence of himself 
 
 In order to exclude the witness as incompetent, his 
 incapacity must be established by the production or 
 proof of a judgment of a court of competent jurisdic- 
 tion ; for it is the judgment which is received as the 
 legal and conclusive evidence of his guilt. Parol evi- 
 dence could not therefore be given of it, and though he 
 himself should admit that he was convicted of felony, 
 this would not render him incompetent. So where a 
 witness admitted himself guilty of perjury, this went to 
 his crediT)ility and not to his competency ; and he was 
 not inadmissible though he admitted that he had per- 
 jured himself on the point in question. 
 
 When the convicted party has suffered the punish- 
 ment awarded, he is again rendered competent^ except in 
 cases of particular crimes, such as perjury and suborna- 
 tion of perjury. It does not seem clear whether the 
 restoration to competency, by suffering a sentence, has 
 proceeded on the ground of incompetency being in the 
 nature of punishment, or on the ground of a regenerat- 
 ing effect of punishment upon the moral feelings of the 
 offender. 
 
 The competency of the mtness may in general be 
 restored by reversal of the judgment, or by a pardon. 
 
234 MILITAEY LAW AND COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 The reversal of the judgment is proved iu the same man- 
 ner as the judgment itself; and the pardon is proved by 
 its production under seal. If the pardon be conditional, 
 the performance of the condition must be shown. The 
 pardon restores the party to all his rights, and is said 
 to make the witness a new creatui'e and give him a new 
 capacity. And this is clearly so, where the incompetency 
 is the consequence of the conviction and judgment; but 
 where the disability is annexed to the con\dction of a 
 particular offence by the express words of a statute, the 
 general rule is, that a pardon will not restore his com- 
 petency. Nothing less than a legislative act, or a re- 
 versal of judgment can restore comj)etency in such a 
 case.* 
 
 A conviction of a crime in another state is not admis- 
 sible in evidence for the purpose of impeaching the credit 
 of a witness. But a conviction in another state of a 
 crime, which by the laws of that state, disqualifies the 
 party from being heard as a mtness, and which, if com- 
 mitted here, would have operated as a disqualification, 
 is sufficient to exclude him from testifying here, the 
 same as if it had been committed and the cenviction 
 had taken place in this jurisdiction. 
 
 4th. Of Incoiupctc'iicy by Rcaf^oii of Interest. The 
 general rule, that all persons interested, to however small 
 a degree, in the event of a cause, should be excluded from 
 giving evidence in favor of that party to whom their 
 interest inclined them, has l)een recently annulled in 
 Great Britain, and the incom2:)eteucy limited to special 
 cases. This is also the case in many of om- states, and 
 the belief is reasonable that in time the rule of incompe- 
 
 * 1 Phillipps, 22. 
 
 \ 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 235 
 
 tency from this cause will be swept away tlirougliout 
 the country. The general rule seems to rest upon the 
 unsound j^rinciple, that the situation of the witness will 
 tempt him to perjury; that in the majority of instances 
 men are so corrupted by their intei-est, tliat they will 
 perjure themselves for it, and that besides being corrupt, 
 they will be so adroit as to deceive courts and juries. 
 This is contrary to all experience. Witnesses are general- 
 ly honest, however jnuch interested, and in most cases of 
 dishonesty the falsehood of the testimony is detected. 
 The rule is as unsound in theory as it is inconsistent in 
 practice, because the law admits "\\'itnesses far more like- 
 ly to be biased in favor of the part}' than he who has a 
 mere interest. A father may testify for his son ; a child 
 living with his father and dependent upon his bounty, 
 may appear as his witness without question. Is the 
 immediate gain by the result of the cause, so potent 
 as to outweigh integrity, while affection, consanguinity, 
 dependence, are put down as dust in the balance ? It 
 is wiser, certainly, to place the witness c^n the stand, and 
 let the jury judge of his testimony."^' 
 
 On a trial before a court-martial, the accuser or imrty 
 aggrieved is a competent ^vitness, though he may him- 
 self have originated the charges, or may, in any other 
 way, be materially interested in the result. The trial, 
 though set in motion at the instance of the aggrieved 
 party, has not f(.)r its object \X\(i re])aration of individual 
 injury, but the satisfaction of public justice. The inno- 
 cence or guilt of the prisoner is the single question u2)on 
 which the court pronounce their verdict. 
 
 The expectation of a l)enefit, not necessarily and legal- 
 
 * 1 Phillipps, p. 25. 
 
236 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 ly flowing from the event of tlie proceeding, does not 
 render the witness incompetent — as the promise of a 
 pardon. So where a woman gave evidence against a 
 prisoner under the hope that his conviction ^vould tend 
 to procure the pardon of her husband, who had been 
 convicted, it went to her credit only and not to her 
 competency. Persons who are entitled, under the gen- 
 eral regidations of the ai-my, to a reward for the appre- 
 hension and delivery of deserters, are competent wit- 
 nesses. So in prosecutions where there are rewards, 
 although the rewards can only be the efl:ect of the con- 
 viction, the prosecutors are competent mtnesses, yet 
 every man who comes as a witness under the idea of 
 having a reward on the con^dction of the prisoner, might 
 be said to be interested in the event of the cause. Where 
 a party is entitled to a pardon, provided another offender 
 be convicted on his testimony, the party so entitled is a 
 competent witness. 
 
 Mere interest or hias^ arising from the witness stand- 
 ing in the same situation as the party by whom he is 
 tendered, is not sufficient. Thus, when several persons 
 axe separately charged for perjury in swearing to the 
 same fact, any of them may be before convection a ^^At^ 
 ness for the others, because he is not interested in the 
 event. Nor is a person incompetent because he is per- 
 sonally interested in a similar question to that upon 
 which he is called to give evidence. 
 
 If the witness lay a wager that he will convict the 
 prisoner, he is still competent, though it goes to his 
 credit. 
 
 With regard to the competency of parties defending 
 in criminal prosecutions, as they are generally most 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 237 
 
 strongly interested in the event, it seldom happens that 
 they can be called as witnesses. One of the several 
 persons jointly indicted or charged, may, however, be 
 rendered competent to give evidence, either for the pros- 
 ecution or for his codefendants. Thus, if a nolle pro- 
 sequi be entered, either before or at the trial, as to one 
 of the defendants, such defendant may be called as a 
 witness for the crovernment asrainst his codefendants. 
 
 In like manner, one of several defendants may be 
 rendered competent in some cases by a separate verdict 
 at the trial. As where it appears at the close of the 
 case for the prosecution, that there is no evidence against 
 one of the defendants, a separate verdict of acquittal 
 may be taken as to him, and he may then be called as 
 a witness on behalf of the others. This procedure can- 
 not be exactly followed by courts-martial, from the ne- 
 cessity of subsequent approval of the verdict of acquit- 
 tal. The court might however adjourn until the case is 
 acted upon by the confirming authority, then reassemble 
 and proceed with the other cases. A prisoner, who may 
 desire to avail himself of the evidence of a person in- 
 volved in the same charge, should, on the receipt of the 
 copy of charges and specifications alleged against him, 
 urge the necessity of his separate trial, and should the 
 convening authority neglect his representation, he should 
 apply directly to the court-martial. 
 
 Simmons quotes from a letter of Lord Erskine, that 
 covers the case in point. " The case of one of the mu- 
 tineers at Portsmouth I remember more distinctly. He 
 was tried with others, and as it was likely that against 
 one of tJiern^ loho hieio the innocence of the person in 
 question^ no evidence could be given, I advised the at- 
 
238 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MARTL^. 
 
 torney who was employed by liim, if tliat turned out 
 to be so, to apply to the court, on the authority of my 
 opinion, to direct such i)erson to be acquitted, and then 
 to pennit him to establish, by his evidence, the innocence 
 of the man in question. This application being accord- 
 ingly made, the court declared itself to be satisfied, that 
 the course proposed was agreeable to the practice of the 
 courts of criminal law, but not of courts-martial ; the\ 
 therefore refused to adopt it, and having no other de- 
 fence, he was sentenced to be executed." Lord Erskine 
 then suggested to his majesty " that the court-martial 
 ought to have confoimed to the rule established in the 
 common law courts, and implored the king to respite 
 the execution, and to' submit the case to the twelve judges 
 for their decision on it. The judges having decided 
 unanimously that the con\dction was iinivarranted^ the 
 man was set at liberty."* 
 
 A })risoner, who has pleaded guilty to a charge, is a 
 competent witness against other defendants joined in 
 the same charge, on the ground that he is not a party 
 to the issues ; the only issues being whether the other 
 prisoners are guilty or not. 
 
 Some difficulty might, perhaps, arise in cases where 
 one of several defendants has pleaded guilty to a charge, 
 where the gist of the oifence lies in its joint conunission 
 by all or a certain number of the parties charged : <?., (/., 
 in an indictment against A and B for a conspiracy : in 
 such case, if A had pleaded guilty, and were called as a 
 witness for B, he would have a dii-ect interest in procuring 
 the acquittal of B ; as in that event, it seems doubtful 
 whether any valid judgment could be pronounced against 
 
 * Simmons, 453, note. 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 239 
 
 the defendant wlio had pleaded guilty. Nevertheless, it 
 appears the witness could not be ol)jected to on the 
 score of interest alone ; that would be a matter affect- 
 ing only his credibility, as he would not be a party to 
 the issue. The "witness, in fact, would seem to stand in 
 the same position as if he were not joined in the indict- 
 ment, but the other defendants were indicted alone for 
 conspii'ing with him, the witness ; in which case there 
 seems to be no doubt but that he would be competent.* 
 
 Hu««c>an<i and "Wife are not admitted as AAdtnesses for 
 or against each other, in any trial, where one of them 
 may be a party. The declarations of husband and wife 
 are subject to the same ride of exclusion as their viva 
 voce testimony. No other relation, however, is excluded: 
 a father may give evidence for his sou, or the son for his 
 father ; although the relation between them may influ- 
 ence his testimony, it will not render him incompetent. 
 
 The reason for excludinsr the husband and wife from 
 o-ivino; e\'idence for or asrainst each other, is founded 
 partly on their identity of interest, and ]3artly on a 
 principle of public policy, which deems it necessary to 
 guard the security and confidence of private life, even at 
 the risk of an occasional failure of justice. They cannot 
 be witnesses for each other, because their interests are 
 absolutely the same ; they are not witnesses against 
 each other, because this is inconsistent ^vith the relation 
 of marriage, and the admission of such evidence would 
 lead to disunion and unhappiness, and possibly to per- 
 jury. ^ 
 
 This general rule of evidence, which has been adopt- 
 ed for the purpose of promoting a perfect union of 
 
 * Phillipps. 55-56. 
 
240 MILITARY LAW AND C0URTS-3IARTIAL. 
 
 interests, and of securing mutual confidence, is so sti'ict- 
 ly observed, that even after a dissolution of marriage 
 by divorce, neither the wife nor the husband is admitted 
 to give any evidence of what occuiTed during the mar- 
 riage, which would have been excluded if the marriage 
 had continued. Thus one great cause of distrust is 
 removed by making the confidence, which once subsists, 
 ever afterward inviolable in courts of law. Upon the 
 same principle, where the marriage has been terminated 
 by the death of either party, the survivor will not Ije 
 permitted to give evidence of transactions that occurred 
 during the marriage. The wife, for instance, cannot 
 prove a contract made by her husband. 
 
 The rule is intended solely for the protection of per- 
 sons who have entered into the relation of husband and 
 wife ; and does not extend to those who, not being mar- 
 ried, have lived together and cohabited as man and 
 Avife.* Therefore in an indictment for bigamy, after 
 proof of the first marriage, the second wife is a compe- 
 tent witness for or against the husband, for the mar- 
 riage is void. 
 
 It is not in every case in which the husband or mfe 
 may be concerned, that the other is precluded fi'om giv- 
 ing evidence. Although the husband and wife are not 
 allowed to be witnesses against each other, where either 
 is directly and immediately interested in the event of a 
 proceeding whether civil or criminal, yet, in collateral 
 proceedings not immediately affecting their mutual in- 
 terest, their evidence is receivable, notA^thstanding that 
 the evidence of the one tends to contradict the other, or 
 may subject the other to a legal demand, or even io a 
 
 * 1 Phillipps, pp. 78-81. 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 241 
 
 criminal charge. Indeed it would seem now to be the 
 settled doctrine, both on authority and principle, that 
 husband and mfe may be received to contradict or 
 criminate each other in a collateral matter, that is, in 
 all cases except where one is called to contradict or 
 criminate the other as a party to some cause. A wife 
 may be a ^Wtness in an action between third persons 
 not immediately aftecting the interest of the husband, 
 though her evidence may possibly expose him to a legal 
 demand; and though upon her testimony the defendant 
 mio-ht have a verdict, and an action mis^ht afterward 
 in consequence be ])rought against the husl)and, she 
 would not then be admitted as a Avitness, nor could her 
 evidence in the first suit 1^e produced against him. 
 
 In all cases of pcrso»i:iB injuries committed by the 
 husband or wife against each other, the injured party is 
 an admissible witness against the other. The evidence 
 is admissible in such cases upon the principle of necessi- 
 ty ; not a general necessity, as where no other witness 
 could be had, but a particular necessity, as where, for 
 instance, the injured party might be otherwise exjiosed, 
 without remedy, to personal injury. Thus on a prose- 
 cution against a man for beating his wife, she is allowed 
 to give evidence.* 
 
 The deposition of a wife in extremis, is admissible 
 against the husl)and charged with her murder, upon the 
 same principle, that the evidence of the wife, if living, 
 would be received to prove a case of personal violence. 
 
 It has been erroneously imagined by some military 
 men, that on a charge before a court-martial for a 
 breach of military discipline, the wife of the prosecutor 
 
 * 1 Phillipps, pp. 84-96. 
 
 IG 
 
242 MILITAEY LAW AND COTJRTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 is not a competent witness. Her testimony may be sus- 
 picious in an equal degree with that of the prosecutor ; 
 but there is no rule or reason to exclude it. The pro- 
 ceedings being at the suit of the crown, as in criminal 
 cases, her evidence would be admitted upon the same 
 principle as that of the prosecutor. Any attempt to 
 deceive may be exposed with greater facility by the 
 opportunity afforded of cross-examining two individuals 
 to the same fact, than if one only was admitted to give 
 evidence ; if, therefore, the accused be innocent of the 
 charge, the advantage of separately examining both 
 husband and wife is entirely in his favor.* 
 
 Accomplices. The evidence of accomplices has been 
 at all times admitted, and its admission has been sup- 
 ported on the ground of public policy and necessity, for 
 its being scarcely possible to detect conspiracies and 
 many of the worst crimes, ^dthout their information. 
 The credit of what is said by the witness, as in all other 
 cases, must be left to the jury who are judges of the 
 matter of fact and of the credibility of witnesses. The 
 object of admitting such evidence is, in order to effect 
 the discovery and punishment of crimes which cannot 
 be proved against the offenders without the aid of the 
 accomplice's testimony. 
 
 Accomplices are admitted to give evidence under an 
 implied p)'omise of 2y(irdo7i, on condition of their making 
 a full and fair confession of the whole truth ; that is, of 
 all the offences about which they might be questioned, 
 and of all their associates in guilt. This implied prom- 
 ise arises fi'om the consideration that the' witness, who 
 is not bound to criminate himself, does so to discover 
 
 * Simmons, p. 457. 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 243 
 
 greater offenders. If he acts in good faitli, and is admit- 
 ted by tlie court as a witness, tlie government is honor- 
 ably l^oiuid to discharge him. Witli regard to other 
 offences with which the prisoner at the bar is not 
 charged, an accomplice can derive no advantage from 
 such equitalde claim to a pardon ; the claim must be 
 considered as limited to the particular offence, for the 
 prosecution of which his testimonj" is admitted. 
 
 For the adtni^-s-ion of an accomplice to testify^ a motion 
 should be made to the court by the public prosecutor, 
 and the court, under the circumstances of the case, will 
 admit or disallow the evidence, as may most effectually 
 answer the purposes of justice. On motion to admit 
 him as a witness, it should be shown that his testimony 
 is absolutely essential to prove the commission of the 
 crime by the party on trial, and that the person pro- 
 posed to be admitted is not more guilty than the other. 
 
 As an accomplice is not an incompetent witness for 
 the prosecution, it follows that he will be also a compe- 
 tent witness on behalf of the prisoner, notwithstanding 
 he may be himself charged on a separate indictment. 
 Where several persons are jointly indicted, one is not a 
 com])etent witness for another, without l^eing first 
 acquitted or convicted, and it makes no difference 
 whether the defendants plead jointly or separately. 
 
 Since accom|)lices are competent witnesses, it appears 
 to follow as a necessary consequence, that if their testi- 
 mony is believed l)y the jury, a prisoner may be legally 
 convicted upon it, though it be unconfirmed by any 
 other evidence. It is the peculiar province of the jury 
 to determine upon the degree of credit to be attached 
 to any competent evidence submitted to their considera- 
 
244 3IILITAEY LAW AND COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 tion ; aud it lias accordingly been laid do^vn in many 
 cases as a settled rule, that a conviction obtained upon 
 tlie unsupported testimony of an accomplice is strictly 
 legal. Tliis doctrine lias however been greatly modified 
 in practice ; and it lias long been considered as a general 
 rule of practice, tliat the testimony of an accomplice 
 ought to receive confirmation; and that, unless it be 
 corroborated in some material part by unimpeachable 
 evidence, the prisoner ought to be acquitted. This 
 practice aj)plies equally when two or more accomplices 
 are brought forward against a prisoner."^ 
 
 Profo<«<«ioiial Contidci&ec, and Privileg^ed Coinniuuioa- 
 tioit§. Although a witness is sworn to speak the truth, 
 the wliole truth, and nothing but the truth, yet there 
 are certain matters which he is not only not bound to 
 disclose, but which it is his duty, even under the obliga- 
 tion of an oath, not to disclose. Where a communica- 
 tion takes place between a counsel and his client, or be- 
 tween the government and some of its agents, such com- 
 munication is privileged, on the ground that should it be 
 suffered to be disclosed, the due administration of justice 
 and government could not proceed ; such administration 
 requiring the observance of inviolable secrecy. But the 
 rule does not extend beyond the two classes of persons 
 above mentioned, whatever obligation of concealment 
 the party may have incurred. 
 
 Except in the case of matters of state, the privilege of 
 not disclosing confidential communications, is confined 
 to counsel^ solicitors, attorneys, and their agents and 
 clerks. Other professional persons, whether physicians, 
 surgeons, or clergymen, have, it seems, no such piivilege. 
 
 * 1 PhiUipps, 105-113. 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 245 
 
 A person who acts as an interpreter between a client 
 and liis attorney, will not be permitted to divulge wbat 
 passed ; for what passed through the medium of an inter- 
 preter, is equally in confidence as if said directly to the 
 attoi'ney ; but it is otherwise with regard to conversa- 
 tion l)etween the interpreter and the client in the absence 
 of the attorney. So the agent or the clei'k of the attor- 
 ney stands in the same situation as the attorney himself. 
 
 Tiie privilege is that of the client and not of the attor- 
 ney, and the courts will prevent the latter, although 
 willing; from makino- the disclosure. But if the attor- 
 ney is called by his client, and examined as to a matter 
 of confidential communication, he may be cross-examined 
 as to that matter though not as to others. The rule 
 applies also to the professional advisers of strangers to 
 the inquiry. Thus an attorney is not at liberty to dis- 
 close what is communicated to him confidentially by his 
 client, although the latter be not in any shape before 
 the court. 
 
 If a person not being an attorney is considted by an- 
 other, under a false impression that he is such, he will 
 not be ]n'ivileged from disclosing what passes. So an 
 attorney is not privileged from disclosing matters com- 
 municated to him before his retainer, or after it had 
 ceased, for tlu-n he stands clearly in the same situation 
 as any other person.* 
 
 1)1 general^ a witness who is pi'ivileged from disclos- 
 ing facts which have come to him in his professional 
 capacity, is sworn in the usual manner to speak tlie 
 truth, the icliole trutli^ and nothing but tlie truth. The 
 c^eneral oblio^ation of an oath to declare the whole truth, 
 
 * Roscoe, 186, 187. 
 
246 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 must, liowever, witli reference to the subject matter and 
 occasion of the oath, be necessarily understood to mean 
 the truth so far as it ought legally to be made known.* 
 
 There are cases to which the law of J)ri^'ilege is not 
 extended, and this is much to be lamented. As for in. 
 stance, those in which medical ijersons are obliged to 
 declare the information which they have acquu'ed by 
 attending in theii' professional characters. In several 
 of the United States, as New York and Missouri, j)hy- 
 sicians and sui-geons are not allowed to disclose any in- 
 formation they may have acquired in attending a patient 
 professionally, where such infoimation was necessary to 
 enable them to do any professional act for the patient. 
 
 Confidential communications to a friend are not priv- 
 ileged ; in cases criminal as well as civil, he is compella- 
 ble when required by courts of justice to disclose them, 
 although made under an injunction and promise of 
 secrecy. 
 
 A confession to a clergyman or jyriest is not privileged 
 by the general rule. But by some it has been con- 
 tended that an exception should be made with regard 
 to confessions made to a Catholic priest, upon the ground 
 that confession in the Roman Catholic church is a relig- 
 ious duty, and that to compel the disclosui'e by means 
 of punishment, would be in effect to punish the party 
 for religious opinions. By the laws of New York and 
 Missouri, no minister of the gosj^el, or priest of any de- 
 nomination, is allowed to disclose any confessions made 
 to him in his professional character, in the course of dis- 
 cipline enjoined by the rides and practice of such denom- 
 ination. 
 
 * 2 Starkie, 232. 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 247 
 
 Privileged coiiiiininieatioiis include all statements and 
 Awitings made or given by a client to Lis attorney or 
 counsellor, for the purpose of obtaining professional ad- 
 vice or assistance. A communication if confidential is 
 privileged, in whatever form it is made. If it would 
 be privileged wlien communicated in words, spoken or 
 written, it will be privileged, equally, wlien conveyed 
 by means of sight instead of Avords. Thus, an attorney 
 cannot give evidence as to the fact of the destruction 
 of an instrument which he has been admitted in confi- 
 dence to see destroyed. Dii*ections made by his rela- 
 tions or friends previous to trial ; memorials laid before 
 counsel ; notes furnished to agents or the like, if done 
 A\'ith that view — all these are privileged communica- 
 tions. The principle of protection must obviously pre- 
 clude an attorney from producing or disclosing the con- 
 tents of papers deposited with him, confidentially, in his 
 professional character.* 
 
 When once the privilege has attached, it continues 
 forever, even though the confidential relation between 
 the parties may have ceased. 
 
 Where the subject inquired into is a collateral matter 
 offact^ which the party setting up the privilege obtained 
 a knowledge of in his individual capacity, and not in 
 his character of professional adviser, he will be com- 
 pelled to disclose it. 
 
 Offleial commuuBrations may be priA^leged. If the 
 communication be in wi'iting, and it is held that the 
 document cannot on principles of public policy be read 
 in CAndence, the effect mil be the same as if it be not 
 in existence, and you may prove, not the contents of 
 
 * 1 Phillipps, 136-145. 
 
248 jnLrrARY law and coukts-maetial. 
 
 tlie instrument, Init what was done by tlie orders of tlie 
 superior. 
 
 The iwoceedings of a court of inquiry are, by our 
 rules and articles of war, privileged in cajiital cases, or 
 those extending to the dismission of an officer ; — l^ut 
 may be admitted as evidence by a court-martial in all 
 other cases, provided that the circumstances are such 
 that oral testimony cannot be obtained.* 
 
 ]Vcs;roes. There is still another class of persons in 
 this country, in relation to whom questions of compe- 
 tency have arisen before courts-martial. These are ne- 
 groes, or of African blood, and upon this fact the objec- 
 tions to their competency ai"e based. 
 
 In the case of Dr. Fellows, assistant sui'geon. United 
 States army, tried at Fort Niagara, N. Y., in 1838, the 
 accused presented a colored person to be sworn as a 
 witness for the defence. A member of the court ob- 
 jected to him as being incompetent. The judge advo- 
 cate briefly stated that the evidence of such persons 
 was not excluded, either by the United States laws, or 
 the laws of the state of New York, and that unless 
 other objections to his competency than the one urged 
 were presented, the com't-martial must receive it ; and 
 that the couii; could not go beyond impeaching his cred- 
 ibility. After due deliberation, the court decided that 
 the person was competent, and his evidence was ad- 
 mitted in the usual way. The re^aewing authority ap- 
 proved the proceedings of the court. 
 
 The same question arose, pending the trial of Lieu- 
 tenant Hooe, United States navy, in Pensacola Harbor, 
 Florida, in 1839. Two free colored persons, seamen, 
 
 * 92d article of war. 
 
OF evide:nce. 249 
 
 were iutroduced as witnesses for the prosecution, took 
 tlie oatli and gave evidence, the court admitting tlieir 
 competency. The accused protested against the admis- 
 sion of such evidence, on the ground that he conceived 
 their testimony altogether illegal ; and that it would he 
 so considered before the civil tribunals of Florida, the 
 forms and customs of ^vhich, he thought, should be as 
 closely followed by a court-martial as possible. The 
 trial having been concluded and sentence pronounced. 
 Lieutenant H. appealed to the President of the United 
 States, urging the same objections as sufficient to vitiate 
 and set aside the whole proceedings. The sentence of 
 the court was however approved 1 )y the Navy Depart- 
 ment, and carried into effect by its order, under the im- 
 ])lied sanction of the President, and after having ob- 
 tained the opinion of the district attorney of the United 
 States, ]\Ir, Ke}', in the al)sence of the attorney-general. 
 The following is extracted from that opinion : " Tlie ac- 
 cused ol^jected that, l)y the laws of Florida, where the 
 com-t-martial was held, such persons are not com2'>etent 
 to testify against a white person ; and he therefore con- 
 tended that they should be in like manner excluded 
 from testifying on courts-martial. Such a consequence 
 -woidd not follow from tlie law of Florida. The officers 
 composing the court ^vere bound to admit the witness, 
 unless some legal discpialification was shown. This 
 could only be by a law of Congress. Whether it be 
 right that there should be a law requiring courts-mar- 
 tial of the United States to reject all such -witnesses as 
 are disqualified by the laws of the state or territory 
 where the courts may be held, is a question for Con- 
 gress alone. Till they enact the disqualification, it 
 
250 JnLITAEY LAW AND COTJRTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 cannot be enforced. The couii; could not do otherwise 
 than admit the testimony." 
 
 The House of Representatives called for a copy of 
 the record of the proceedings, &c., in the above case. 
 In answer to the call, the secretary of the na\'y re- 
 marks : " In submitting these documents, it seems prop- 
 er to state that the department has not, in approving 
 the judgment of the court-martial, made any decision on 
 the legality or illegality of admitting the testimony of 
 fi'ee colored persons who are enlisted on board of a 
 vessel of the United States. No law exists, within the 
 knowledge of the department, to regulate this practice ; 
 and as a decision of the point one way or the other was 
 not called for to regulate the opinion of the department 
 as to the correctness of the judgment, it was deemed im- 
 proper, under such circumstances, to decide a legal ques- 
 tion not provided for by any act of Congress, and which 
 would, when decided, affect the rights (if they exist) of 
 officers and seamen to produce such testimony, even in 
 their o\^'n defence, and when tried on capital charges."""'" 
 
 In the absence of all statute laws settling this ques- 
 tion, and in view of the utterly divergent and irrecon- 
 cilable opinions, on the subject of slavery, held by dif- 
 ferent sections of the country, it is the policy of all 
 courts-martial to be guided and governed in such cases, 
 by the rules that regulate the federal coui'ts of law, and 
 which are in harmony with the rules of e\'idence of the 
 particular states or territories in which these courts may 
 hold their sessions. 
 
 It is a settled point at common law, that a slave can- 
 not be a witness, because of the unbounded influence of 
 
 * Doc. No. 2-44, II. of R., 26th Congress, 1st Session. 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 251 
 
 Ills master over liim, wliicli is at least equal to duress. 
 But it Las l)eeu said, that tlie declarations of a slave in 
 respect to liis liealtli are admissible, to show the effects 
 of a blow. 
 
 Hearsay Evidence. The term hearsay evidence is used 
 Avith reference Ijoth to that which is written, and to that 
 which is spoken. But in its legal sense, it is confined 
 to that kind of evidence which does not derive its ef- 
 fects solely from the credit to l)e attached to the witness 
 himself, but rests also in part on the veracity and com- 
 petency of some other person, from whom the witness 
 may have received his information. The general rule 
 is, that hearsay evklcnee is not receivable. It is in- 
 admissible on two grounds : first, that the party origi- 
 nally stating the facts does not make the statement under 
 the sanctity of an oath; and secondly, that the party 
 against whom the evidence is offered would lose the op- 
 portunity of examining into the means of knowledge 
 of the party making the statement. By our articles 
 of war, every fact for or against a prisoner must be 
 proved on oath,* and by the constitution the accused 
 must " be confronted with the witnesses against him."f 
 
 Besides these tests, it must be considered that such 
 evidence is very liable to he fallaeious, from the facility 
 with Avliich it ma}- have been imperfectly heard, or from 
 having been misunderstood or inaccurately remembered, 
 or perhaps perverted, or possibly altogether fabricated. 
 It is to be observed also, that persons communicating 
 such evidence ai-e not subject to the danger of a prose- 
 cution for perjury ; for where the hearsay statement is 
 said to have been made when no third jierson was 
 
 * 73d article of war. Ith Amendment to tlio Constitution. 
 
252 [LITAEY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 present, tlie witness lias no cause to be aj^preliensive of 
 punisliment, even thougli he lias entirely fabricated the 
 statement/^' 
 
 Verbal and written declarations are often said to be 
 admissible, as constituting a part of the res ge-stce. As 
 such, they are most properly admissible when they 
 accompany some act, the nature, objects, or motives of 
 which are the subject of inquiry. For where ^rords or 
 ^^Titings accompany an act, or where they indicate the 
 state of a person's feelings, or bodily sufferings, they 
 derive their credit from the surrounding cii-cumstances, 
 and not from the bare expressions of the declarant. 
 Where evidence of an act done by a party is admissible, 
 his declarations made at the time, having a tendency to 
 elucidate or give a character to the act, and which may 
 derive a deo;ree of credit from the act itself, are also ad- 
 missible as part of the res gestce. On the trial of an 
 indictment for manslaughter, declarations made by the 
 prisoner at the commencement of, and during the fatal 
 affi'ay, as well as immediately before and after it, must 
 be received as constituting a part of the res gestce. 
 
 The declarations of a j^arty are admissible in his 
 favor^ when they are so connected with some material 
 act as to explain or qualify it, or show the intent with 
 which it was done. 
 
 Where a prisoner indicted for murder has ^^I'oduced 
 evidence of declarations l)y the deceased, with a view to 
 raise the presumption that he committed suicide, it is 
 competent for the prosecution to give in e\ddence the 
 reasons assigned by him for his declarations. 
 
 It is not competent for a prisoner indicted for murder, 
 
 *1 rhmipps, 212. 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 253 
 
 to give 111 evidence his own account of tlie transaction, 
 related immediately after it occurred, tliougli no third 
 person was present when the homicide was committed. 
 
 When the state of mind, sentiment, or disposition of 
 a person at a given period, become pertinent topics of 
 inquiry, his declarations and conversations, being part 
 of the res gestae^ may be resorted to.* 
 
 If it be material to inquire wlien a certain person 
 gave a jyarticular order on a certain subject, what he 
 has said or ^viitten may be evidence of the order ; or 
 where it is material to inquire whether a certain fact, 
 be it true or false, has come to the knowledge of a third 
 person, what he has said or written may as clearly show 
 his knowledg^e as what he has done. 
 
 Analogous to the cases in which hearsay evidence is 
 admissible as being part of the res gestae^ are the cases 
 of dyiiisr declarations. It is said by E}Te, C. B., that 
 the general principle uj^on which evidence of this kind 
 is admitted is, that it is of declarations made in ex- 
 tremity, when the party is at the point of death, and 
 when every hope of this world is gone, when every 
 motive to falsehood is silenced, and the mind is induced 
 l)y the most powerful considerations to speak the truth. 
 A situation so solemn and so aA\lful, is considered by 
 the law as creating an obligation equal to that which is 
 imposed by a positive oath administered in a court of 
 justice. 
 
 Evidence of this kind, which is peculiar to the case 
 of homicide, has been considered by some to be admis- 
 sible from necessity, since it often happens tliat there is 
 no third person present to be an eye-witness to the fact. 
 
 * Roscoe, 22, 2a. 
 
254 MILITARY LAW A]^D COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 It shall not be allowed to tlie offender to commit a 
 homicide, and by the same act jDut to silence the only 
 witness at whose mouth he may be condemned. 
 
 Where the declarations offered in evidence as to the 
 cause of death, are of a deceased who has been particeps 
 crinninis^ they are, nevertheless, as it seems, admissible 
 against the other party, though it may need corrob- 
 oration. 
 
 The statement of tlie deceased must be such as would 
 be admissible if he were alive and could be examined 
 as a witness ; consequently a declaration upon matters 
 of opinion as distinguished from facts, will not be re- 
 ceivable. 
 
 Dying declarations in favor of the party charged 
 with the death, are admissible in evidence equally as 
 where they operate against him. 
 
 It is no objection to a dying declaration, that it has 
 been elicited by questions put to the deceased ; he may 
 be examined upon oath by a magistrate, and the exami- 
 nation be signed by both, but Avhere this is the case, 
 neither a copy of the paper nor parol evidence of its 
 contents can be received. 
 
 The question, loliether a dying declaration is admis- 
 sible in evidence^ is exclusively for the consideration of 
 the court. And it is a general rule that dying declara- 
 tions, though made with a full consciousness of ap- 
 proaching death, are only admissil:)le in evidence where 
 the death of the deceased is the subject of the charge, 
 and the circumstances of the death are the subject of 
 the dying declarations.* 
 
 Before dying declarations can be received in evidence, 
 
 * Roscoe, 27, 28. 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 255 
 
 inquiry must be made, wlietlier tlie deceased appre- 
 hended tliat lie was in sueli a state of mortality, as 
 would inevitably oblige liim soon to answer before liis 
 Maker for tlie truth or falsehood of his assertions. In 
 this inquiry it is not necessary that the deceased should 
 have explained by any expressions, whether he thought 
 himself likely to live or die, if it be clear that the party 
 did not expect to sur^^.ve the injury — if his condition 
 was such that he must have felt that he was a dying 
 man. Positive evidence of this knowledge is not re- 
 quired ; but it may be inferred from the general conduct 
 and deportment of the party. It is necessary to hear 
 all that the party said relative to his situation, in order 
 to ascertain whether he had that impression upon his 
 mind, which will make his declarations admissible in 
 evidence. 
 
 Dying declarations are, of course, o;pen to direct con- 
 tradiction in the same manner as any other part of the 
 case for the prosecution, and the prisoner is at liberty 
 to 2:>rove that the character of the deceased was such 
 that no reliance is to be placed on his dying declara- 
 tions. If the deceased by reason of infancy, or imbecil- 
 ity of mind, or a disbelief in a God, would have been 
 excluded as a witness while living, his dying declara- 
 tions would, for like causes, be rejected by the court. 
 
 As the declarations of a dying man are admitted, on 
 a .sui)position that in his awful situation he had the 
 strongest motives to speak without disguise and mth- 
 out malice, it necessarily follows that the party against 
 whom they are produced in evidence, may enter into 
 the particulars of his state of mind, and of his behavior 
 in his last moments ; and may be allowed to show that 
 
256 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MARTIAL. 
 
 the deceased was not of sueli a cliaracter as was likely 
 to be impressed with a religious sense of Ms approach- 
 ino; dissolution.* 
 
 Tiie tc»>tiuioiiy on a former trial of a witness subse- 
 quently deceased, or who, having been duly summoned, 
 may appear to have kept away by contrivance and col- 
 lusion, or who may have become insane in the interval, 
 may be given in evidence by a person who heard the 
 deposition, the parties to the suit and the points in 
 issue being the same. As to the person by whom the 
 former viva voce testimony may be proved, the decisions 
 in all cases agree that this may be done by any one who 
 heard the testimony, the judge, counsel, jury, or by- 
 stander, provided he will, on his oath, undertake to 
 repeat it in such detail as the practice of the courts may 
 requii^e. It has been held that the person called must 
 undertake to repeat j^i'ecisely the very words of the 
 deceased witness, and not merely to swear to their sub- 
 stance or effect. The rule, if applied in that degree of 
 strictness, would be practically useless; for there are 
 few men, if any, be their powers of recollection what 
 they may, who could be qualified to give such e\ddence ; 
 and if he should undertake positively to swear to the 
 very words, the jury ought on that account alone to dis- 
 believe him. The doctrine both of reason and authority 
 seems to be that the evidence of the deceased mtness 
 may 1)e proved, if the person proving it will swear that 
 he gives the matter siihstantially. 
 
 This exception to the rule of hearsay evidence may 
 by possibilit}' apply on an appeal from a regimental to 
 a general court-martial ; or where testimony elicited 
 
 * Pliillipps. 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 257 
 
 before a court of inquiry is required before a general 
 court-martial ; or wliere from the cleatli or sickness of 
 meml^ers tlie former court has been dissolved, and a 
 new court being ordered, the proceedings are commenced 
 de novo. 
 
 Confessions. The confessions of prisoners are received 
 in evidence, upon the presumption that a jjerson will 
 not make an untrue statement ao-ainst his ovn\ interest. 
 
 o 
 
 But it is to be observed that there may not unfrequent- 
 \j be motives of hope and fear inducing a person to 
 make an untrue confession. And further, in conse- 
 (pience of the universal eagerness and zeal which prevail 
 for the detection of guilt, when offences occur of an ag- 
 gravated character — in consequence also of the necessity 
 of using testimony of suspicious witnesses for the dis- 
 covery of secret crimes, the evidence of confessions is 
 subject in a very remarkable degree, to the imperfec- 
 tions attaching generally to hearsay evidence.''^ 
 
 With regard to the degree of credit which ought to 
 be attached to a confession, much difference of opinion 
 has existed. By some, a free and voluntary confession 
 has been considered as forming the highest and most 
 satisfactory evidence of guilt — as deserving of the high- 
 est credit because it is presumed to flow from the higli- 
 est sense of guilt, and therefore admissible as proof of 
 the crime to which it refers. On the other hand, it has 
 been held that hasty confessions made to persons having 
 no authority to examine, are the weakest and most sus- 
 picious of all evidence. Proof may be too easily pro- 
 cured, words are often misreported through ignorance, 
 inattention, or malice, and they are extremely liable to 
 
 * 1 PhiUipps, p. 532. 
 17 
 
258 MILITARY LAAV AifD C0URTS-3IARTIAL. 
 
 misconstruction. Moreover, this evidence is not, in the 
 usual course of things, to be disproved by that sort of 
 negative evidence, by which the proof of plain facts 
 may be and often is confronted.* 
 
 Although it can hardly be conceived that any one 
 would make a fi'ee and voluntary confession of guilt, so 
 diametrically opposed to the feelings and principles 
 that govern our actions, if the facts confessed were 
 untrue, yet instances have occurred in which innocent 
 persons have confessed themselves guilty of crimes of 
 the gravest character. 
 
 Confessions are reducible to three classes. First^ a 
 confession in open court, by the prisoner, of his own 
 guilt — this is conclusive, and no proof is necessary. 
 Second^ a confession made before a magistrate; and, 
 third^ a confession made to any other person — this is 
 the weakest and lowest of all, and often demands proof 
 of corroborating cu'cumstances to sustain it. 
 
 A voluntary coufessiou made by a person who has 
 committed an offence, although not conclusive, is evi- 
 dence against him upon which he may be convicted, 
 notwithstanding the confession is totally uncorroborated 
 by other evidence — pro\dded the corpus delicti^ the act 
 constituting the crime, be proved by other evidence. 
 
 It has been considered necessaiy in all cases, previous 
 to receiving a confession in evidence, to inquire whether 
 it has been voluntary. The usual questions are, whether 
 the prisoner has been told that it would be better for 
 him to confess, or worse for him if he did not confess, 
 or whether any language to that effect has been used. 
 The object of the rule relating to their exclusion is, to. 
 
 * Roscoe, p 38. 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 259 
 
 exclude all confessions which may have heen j)rociired 
 from the prisoner, l)y leading him to suppose that it 
 will l)e l^etter for him to admit himself to be guilty of 
 an offence which he really never committed. Confes- 
 sions, therefore, Avhich are obtained from the accused by 
 his being im]3roperly oj^erated upon, are incompetent 
 evidence, and should as such be entirely rejected by the 
 court, upon the preliminary incpiiry into the circiun- 
 stances under which they are obtained. 
 
 The general rule u2:»on this subject may be thus 
 stated : a promise of benefit or favor, or threat or in- 
 timation of disfavor, connected with the subject of the 
 charge, held out l)y a person having authority in the 
 matter, will be sufficient to exclude a confession made 
 in consequence of such inducement, either of hope or 
 fear. And the same principle applies, if the induce- 
 ment has been held out by a person without authority, 
 V)ut in the presence of a person who has such authority, 
 and with his sanction eithei* expressed or implied, who 
 gives no caution and ex])resses no dissent. 
 
 But a coiafossion made in couscqiiciiee of aii iiiduec?- 
 meut held out by a person who has no authority, and 
 cannot reasonably be supposed to have an}^, is not liable 
 to the suspicion or presumption of being untrue, and 
 therefore it seems settled, that under ordinary circum- 
 stances, a confession is not to T)e excluded on account of 
 its having been made under an inducement held out by 
 such person, j^rovided always that the prisoner is aware 
 that the person has no authority whatever. 
 
 It ■'■//i Of fid he cojh9/dered that the confession is generally 
 made in Avant of advisers, under circumstances of deser- 
 tion by the world, in chains and degradation, with spir- 
 
260 iULlTAEY LAW AXB COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 its sunk, fear j^redominant, liope fluttering around, pui'- 
 poses and views momentarily changing, a thousand plans 
 alternating, a soul tortured with anguish and difficulties 
 gathering into a multitude. How eas}^ is it for the 
 hearer to take one word for another, or take a word in 
 a sense not intended by the speaker ! And for want of 
 an exact representation of the tone of voice, emphasis, 
 countenance, eye, manner, and action of the one who 
 made the confession, how almost impossible is it to 
 make a third person understand the exact state of his 
 mind and meaning. For these reasons such evidence is 
 received with great distrust, and under apprehensions 
 for the ^vi'ong it may do. Its admissibility is made to 
 depend on its being free of the suspicion that it was ob- 
 tained by any threats of severity or promises of favor, 
 and of every influence, even the minutest.* 
 
 The confession will not he excluded even where undue 
 influence has been exerted, if it has been made under 
 such circumstances as to create a reasonable presumption 
 that the threat or promise had no influence, or had ceased 
 to have any influence upon the mind of the party. Thus, 
 if the impression that a confession is likely to benefit 
 him has been removed from the mind of a prisoner, 
 what he says will be evidence against him, although he 
 has been advised to confess; but there must be very 
 strong evidence of an explicit warning not to rely on 
 any expected favor, and that the prisoner thoroughly 
 understood such warning, before his subsequent confes- 
 sion can be given in evidence. 
 
 Where a person has made a confession in the hope of 
 obtaining a reward or pardon from government, and of 
 
 * state vs. Fields and Webber, Peck's Rep., 140. 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 261 
 
 being admitted state's evidence, his confession is admis- 
 sible against him, unless it appear that at the time of 
 making the confession he knew that a reward had been 
 offered ; if he was aware of the offer Ijefore he made the 
 confession, it wonld not he admissible. 
 
 If a party has l)een admitted state'' s evidence and has 
 confessed, and upon the trial refuses to give evidence, 
 his own confession will be evidence against himself.* 
 
 It is not every hope of favor held out to a prisoner 
 that will render a confession afterward made by him 
 inadmissible: the promise must have some reference 
 to his escape from the charge. The threats or promises 
 must have reference to some temporal advantage, in 
 order to invalidate a confession. Where a prisoner 
 accused of a murder had repeated interviews with a 
 clergyman, who urged him to repentance, telling him 
 that " before God it would be better for him to confess 
 liis sins," that " his fears respecting his partici2:)ation in 
 the dreadful deed were fully confirmed, and that, while 
 he was in that state of mind, he (the chaplain) could 
 affbi'd him no consolation by prayer," and subsequently 
 to tliese exhortations, the prisoner made a confession; 
 the judges were unanimously of opinion that it was 
 j)roperl3^ received in evidence, and the prisoner was 
 executed.f 
 
 Where a confession has been obtained by artifice or 
 deception^ but without the use of promises or threats, it 
 is admissil)le. In one case artifice was used to induce 
 a prisoner to suppose that some of his accomplices were 
 in custody, under which mistaken supposition he made 
 a confession, and it was admitted in evidence. So \\here 
 
 * 1 Phillipps, 551. f Roscoe, -41 
 
262 MILITAEY LAW AND COUKTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 a prisoner asked tlie tui'iikey if lie would mail a letter 
 for him, and on receiving a promise that he would do 
 so,' gave him the letter ; it was detained by the turnkey, 
 and given in evidence as a confession at the trial. 
 
 A qiic»itioii has sometimes arisen, whether a statement 
 which has been made by a party upon an examination 
 as a wdtness, against another person on a distinct charge 
 — provided there has been no promise of favor or of re- 
 ward for information, nor threats made to induce him to 
 confess — can be received in evidence against him, if he 
 himself should be put upon his trial for the same offence. 
 The more recent decisions seem to make against their 
 admissibility, at least where the prisoner was not cau- 
 tioned beforehand. Although it is said by Starkie, that 
 when a witness answers questions upon his examination 
 on a trial tending to criminate himself, and to which he 
 might have demurred, his answers may be used for all 
 purposes. By the Vth amendment to the constitution, 
 no person " shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to 
 be a witness against himself," and tlie G9th article of 
 war makes it the duty of the judge advocate to ol)ject 
 " to any question to the prisoner, the answer to which 
 might tend to criminate himself," thus barring the recep- 
 tion of all compulsory evidence tending to the crimina- 
 tion of any individual. Where such answers are made 
 freely and voluntarily, they are, of coarse, admissible 
 against him. 
 
 Although a confession obtained by means of promises 
 or threats cannot be received, yet if, in consequence of 
 that confession, certain facts tending to establish the 
 guilt of the prisoner are made hioivn^ evidence of those 
 facts may be received. Facts thus obtained must be 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 263 
 
 fully and satisfactorily j^roved, without calling in the 
 aid of any part of tlie confession from wliicli tliey Lave 
 Ijeen deri\'ed, or at most by admitting only so much of 
 the confession as relates strictly to the facts discovered 
 l)y it. For instance, a prisoner made a statement to a 
 policeman under circumstances that j^recluded it from 
 being given in evidence, but the statement contained 
 some allusion to a lantern which was afterward found. 
 It was decided that the words used by the j)]'isoner with 
 reference to the thing found ought to be given in evi- 
 dence, and the policeman accordingly stated that the 
 prisoner told him that he had thrown a lantern into a 
 certain pond. The other parts of the statement were 
 not received.* 
 
 In former times it was usual to admit the confessions 
 of prisoners, even of sitcli as hid afterward been exe. 
 ciited^ as evidence against others, and this at a period 
 when torture was not unfrequently applied in order to 
 obtain confessions ; as upon the trials of the Earl of 
 Essex and Sir Walter Kaleigh — in the latter of which 
 Sir E. Coke says, that the laic 'presumes a man will not 
 accuse himself for the purj)ose of accusing another. 
 The rule at present is, that a confession is only evidence 
 against the party himself who made it, and cannot be 
 used against others. U})on the same principle, the con- 
 fession of the i)rincipal is not admissible in evidence, to 
 prove his guilt upon an indictment against the acces- 
 sory. 
 
 In general, a person is not answerable criminally, for 
 the acts of his servants or agents^ and tlierefoi-e the dec- 
 larations or confessions of a servant or ascent will not 
 
 * Roscoc, 51. 
 
264 MILITARY LAW AND COUKTS-MAIITIAL. 
 
 be evidence against him. But it is otherwise w^here 
 the declaration relates to a fact in the ordinary course 
 of the agents' employment, in which case such declara- 
 tions accompanying an act done, will be e\'idence in a 
 criminal proceeding, as well as in a civil suit. 
 
 In criminal as well as in civil cases, tiie Aviiole of an 
 admission or confession made by a party is to be given 
 in evidence. The rule does not exclude a confession 
 where only part of what the defendant said has been 
 overheard. And if a prisoner, in speaking of the testi- 
 mony of one who had testified against him, says, that 
 " what he said was true so far as he went, but he did 
 not say all or enough ;" this is not admissible as a con- 
 fession, nor does it warrant j)roof of what the witness 
 did swear to. There is no doubt that if a prosecutor 
 uses the declaration of a prisoner, he must take the 
 whole of it together, and cannot select one j^tart and 
 leave another. But if, after the whole of the statement 
 of the prisoner is given in evidence, the prosecutor is in 
 a situation to contradict any part of it, he is at liberty 
 to do so, and then the statement of the prisoner and the 
 whole of the other evidence must be left to the jury for 
 their consideration, precisely as in any other case where 
 one part of the evidence is contradictory to another. It 
 must not, however, from this, be supposed that every 
 pai't of a confession is entitled to equal credit. A jury 
 may believe that which charges the prisoner, and i-eject 
 that which is in his favor, if they see sufiicient grounds 
 for so doing. Thus, a prisoner charged with murder 
 stated in his confession that he was j^resent at the mur- 
 der, which was committed by another 2:>erson, and that 
 he took no part in it ; — the judge left the confession to 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 265 
 
 the jury, saying : " It must be taken a.cogetlier, and it 
 is evidence for the prisoner as well as against him ; still 
 the jury may, if they think proper, believe one part of 
 it, and disl relieve another." Also, if a person in making 
 an admission against his own interest refers to a written 
 paper, without which the admission is not complete, the 
 contents of the paper ought to be shown before the 
 statement can be used as evidence asrainst him. 
 
 o 
 
 An admission on the part of the prisoner is not con- 
 clusive, and if it afterward appear in evidence that the 
 fact was otherwise, the admission will be of no wei^-ht. 
 Thus upon an indictment for bigamy, where the pris- 
 oner had admitted the first marriage, and it appeared at 
 the trial that such marriage was void for want of con- 
 sent of the guardian of the woman, the prisoner was 
 acquitted. Such are confessions of matters void in 
 point of law, or false in fact. 
 
 Where a confession has been taken in writing, the 
 document must be produced. But a written examina- 
 tion \\'ill not exclude proof of a confession made previ- 
 ously or subsequently, to the prosecutor or any other 
 person. 
 
 For the purpose of introducing a confession in evi- 
 dence, it is unnecessary, in general, to do more than 
 negative an}' j)romise or inducement held out by the 
 person to whom the confession was made. If there be 
 any probable ground to suspect that an officer, in whose 
 custody a prisoner has previously been, has ])een guilty 
 of collusion in obtaining a confession, such suspicion 
 ought to be removed in the first instance by the prose- 
 cutor calling such officer.* 
 
 * Roscoe, 58. 
 
266 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAKTIAL. 
 
 Of the Exeliisioii of Secondary Evidence, and of the 
 Rule which requires the best Evidence to be given. 
 
 The law excludes sucli evidence of facts as, from the 
 nature of the thing, supposes still better evidence be- 
 hind, in the party's possession or power. 
 
 The principle of the rule under consideration is 
 founded on the presumption that there is something in 
 the better evidence which is withheld, which would 
 make against the party resorting to inferior evidence. 
 Although in some instances, this presumption may not 
 be very strong, yet the general effect of the rule is, to 
 prevent fraud, and to induce parties to bring before a 
 court or jury the kind of evidence which is least calcu- 
 lated to perplex or mislead them. The present rule is 
 satisfied by the production of the best attalnahle evi- 
 dence. In requiring the production of the best evidence 
 applicable to each particular fact, it is meant that no 
 evidence of a nature merely substitutionary shall be re- 
 ceived when the primary evidence is producible. By sub- 
 stitutionary evidence is meant, such evidence as implies 
 the existence of primary or more original information. 
 
 Where there is no substitution of evidence, l)ut only 
 a selection of weaker for stronger proofs, or an omis- 
 sion to supply all the proofs capal)le of l)eing produced, 
 the rule is not infringed ; the rule of law does not re- 
 quire the strongest possible assurance of a fact — in 
 other words, it does not require a repetition of evidence 
 beyond that which is sufficient to establish the fact. So 
 if an overt act of mutiny should be witnessed l)y fifty 
 persons, the law wdll 1)e satisfied by the production of a 
 part only of the persons present, and one or more would 
 be as sufficient to prove it as the entire number. In 
 
OF EVIDENCE. 267 
 
 such a case the best possible evidence would have been 
 produced, though not the strongest possil^Ie assurance. 
 Sufficient evidence is what the law requires, and not an 
 accumulation of identical evidence ; hence the testimony 
 of one credible witness is sufficient to prove a fact, not 
 admitting of further proof, except in cases where the 
 I'dw has designated a different rule, as in the case of false 
 muster, the 15th article of war prescribes two witnesses 
 as necessary to conviction. 
 
 In cases where the pinvaey of the offence has excluded 
 the possibility of further proof, and where no facts have 
 been proved to exist, tending to place in doulit the credi- 
 bility of the complainant, courts-martial have admitted 
 the testimony of the complainant alone, as sufficient for 
 con^dction. McArthur* reports a case of a nav^al lieu- 
 tenant who was tried on charges preferred by his cap- 
 tain, and among others, for going into the captain's 
 cabin, when alone at tea, and calling him scoundrel and 
 liar. The privacy of the offence excluded all other 
 positive evidence but that of the complainant, which was 
 admitted, and the lieutenant was dismissed the service. 
 
 If the law were in every case peremptorily to require 
 two witnesses, this would by no means insure the dis- 
 covery of truth, but would infalli])ly obstruct its disclos- 
 ui*e, ^vllerever the facts were known only to a single 
 witness. It is therefore held, that there can be no d()ul)t 
 of th£ Ugal siifficiem-y of one ivitnes-s to justify conviction^ 
 if the e\adence of such witness be entitled to full credit. 
 
 The best evidence is distinguished as primary — the 
 inferior e\'idence is usually termed secondary, it not be- 
 ing original or primaiy. 
 
 * 2 McArthur, 56. 
 
268 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 PRIMARY EVIDENCE. 
 
 Written iii«>itruineiit§. As a general rale the contents 
 of a written instrument can only be proved by the pro- 
 duction of the instrument itself, parol evidence of them 
 being of a secondary or inferior nature. But this rale 
 is not without many exceptions. In general, whenever 
 there exists a ^vintten document, which by the policy of 
 the law is considered to contain the evidence of certain 
 facts, that document is regarded as the best evidence of 
 the facts which it records ; and unless it he in the posses- 
 sion of the opposite party, and notice has been given to 
 him to produce it, or it be proved to be lost or destroyed, 
 secondary evidence of its contents is not admissible. 
 This rule is of frequent application in courts-martial 
 with reference to written orders, letters, &c. 
 
 Upon the same principle the records of courts of 
 justice existing in v^^iting, are primar}^ evidence of the 
 facts there recorded. This rule finds application in 
 military tribunals, where the proceedings of a court of 
 inquiry, for instance, are admitted as evidence before 
 a court-martial. 
 
 Although matters of record and proceedings of courts 
 of justice when committed to writing, cannot be proved 
 by parol, they may he proved hy examined copies^ a rale 
 founded upon a principle of general convenience. In the 
 same manner, examined copies of puUic books are ad- 
 missible without producing the originals. This rale is 
 applicable to office books of an official character when 
 called for l)efore a court-martial. But no sucli rule ex- 
 ists with regard to private documents, there being no 
 inconvenience in reouiring their pi-oduction. 
 
PRIMAEY EVIDENCE. 269 
 
 It may l)e laid down as a riile, that tlie adi)iission6' 
 of a lyai'ty are competent evidence against himself only 
 in cases where j^arol evidence would l)e admissible to 
 establish the same facts, or, in other words, where there 
 is not, in the judgment of the law, higher and ])etter 
 evidence in existence to be produced. It would be a 
 dangerous innovation upon the rules of evidence, to 
 give any greater effect to confessions or admissions of a 
 party, unless in open court^ and the tendency would be 
 to dispense with the j)roduction of the most solemn 
 documentary evidence. It is not, however, necessary in 
 every case where the fact that is to be proved has been 
 committed to writing, that the writing should be pro- 
 duced. Facts may he proved hij parol^ though a narra- 
 tive of them may exist in writing. Thus a person who 
 pays money may prove the fact of payment without 
 producing the receipt ^vliicli he took ; but parol evidence 
 that a receipt given, acknowledged that the money w^as 
 in full payment, is inadmissible, when the receipt is in 
 existence and no measures have been taken to procure 
 it. So a person who takes notes of a conversation need 
 not produce them in proving the conversation. 
 
 In the case oi printed documents, all the impressions 
 are originals, or in the nature of duplicate originals, and 
 any copy will be primary evidence.* 
 
 Handwriting;. In proving handwriting, the evidence 
 of third persons is not inferior to that of the party him- 
 self. Such evidence is not in its nature inferior or second- 
 ary, and though it may generally be true that a writer is 
 best acquainted with his oww handwriting, and therefore 
 his evidence will 'Generally be thought the most satis- 
 
 Roscoe, 1-4. 
 
270 MILITARY LAW AOT) C0UETS-3IAETLAL. 
 
 factory, yet his knowledge is acquired precisely by the 
 same means as the knowledge of other persons, who 
 have been in the habit of seeing him write, and differs 
 not so much in kind as in degree. The testimony of 
 such persons therefore, is not of a secondary species, nor 
 does it give reason to suspect, as in the case where pri- 
 mary evidence is withheld that the fact to which they 
 speak is not true. K the evidence of third persons be 
 admissible to j)rove handwriting, it seems necessarily 
 to follow that it is equally admissible for the purpose of 
 disproving it, the question of genuine or not genuine be- 
 ino^ the same in both cases.* 
 
 The simplest and most oi)vioii§ proof of iiaudwriting, 
 is the testimony of a witness who saw the paper or sig- 
 natiu'e actually written. But where such a direct kind 
 of evidence cannot possibly be procured, the best which 
 the nature of the case admits is the information of ^vit- 
 nesses acquainted with the supposed wi'iter, who, from 
 seeing him write, have acquired a knowledge of his 
 handwi'iting ; for in every person's manner of ^\Titing, 
 there is a certain distinct prevailing character which 
 may be discovered by observation, and when once known, 
 may be afterward applied as a standard to try any 
 other specimen of writing ^vhose genuineness is dis- 
 puted. A witness may therefore be asked, whether he 
 has seen a particular person ^viite, or whether he is 
 acquainted with his handwi'iting, and his opportunities 
 for becoming so acquainted, and afterward, whether he 
 believes the paper in dispute to be his handwriting. 
 This course of examination evidentl}' involves two ques- 
 tions ; fii'st, whether the supposed writer is the person of 
 
PEIMAEY EVIDENCE, 271 
 
 whom the witness speaks — a question of identity ; and, 
 secondly, if he be the person, whether he wrote the 
 paper in disj^nte — a question of judgment, or a com- 
 parison in the mind of the witness between the general 
 standard and the writing produced. ' All evidence of 
 handwriting, except when the witness has seen the doc- 
 ument actually Avritten, is in its nature comparison. It 
 is the hellef which a witness entertains, iq^on comparing 
 the writing in question with an exemplar in his mind, 
 derived from some previous knowledge. 
 
 This kind of evidence, like all probable evidence, ad- 
 mits of every 2'>ossible degree^ from the lowest presmnp- 
 tion to the highest moral certainty. It may be so weak 
 as to be utterly unsafe to act upon ; or so strong as to 
 produce conviction in the mind of any reasonable man. 
 The witness may have been in the constant habit of 
 seeing the person write, day by day, for years together ; 
 or he may have seen him ^mte (mly a few words years 
 ago ; or the specimens he saw may have been slight and 
 imperfect, A\Titten in a hurry, <fec., but whatever degree 
 of weight his testimony may deserve, it is an established 
 rule that if he speaks of handwriting fi'om having seen 
 the person write, he is competent, though he never saw 
 him wi'ite but once. 
 
 Witnesses Avill frequently express the weaker de- 
 grees of belief in their minds, by saying they are of 
 opinion., or they tliiiik j in such a case the evidence of a 
 witness who has seen a person ^^Tite is receivable. The 
 language which a -witness adopts in such cases varies 
 accordinii!- to the hal)its of the individual, and to the 
 want of precision in the terms used for expressing the 
 various degrees of con\4ctiou in the mind, and therefore 
 
272 MILITARY LAW AND COUllTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 it is, that tlie testimony of a witness is lield admi^^sible 
 thougli lie may not swear positively to liis l^elief, in 
 words. 
 
 Aiiotlicr iiietliod of acquiring a knoi;vledgc of hand- 
 ^Ti'iting, is by means of a written correspondence. If a 
 witness lias received letters of sucli a nature as makes 
 it probable tliat tliey were written by the hand from 
 which they profess to come, he may be admitted to 
 speak to that person's handwriting. It is essential that 
 the identity of the correspondent whose letters have 
 been received with the party whose handwriting is to 
 be j^roved, should l)e established, either by the Avitness 
 who received the letters, or by other reasonable evi- 
 dence. If this point is clearly j)roved, the witness will 
 frequently be able to give more satisfactory evidence 
 than one who has seen the person in the act of writing; 
 for the latter may have seen him ^vi'ite but seldom, 
 while the other may have had frequent oj^portunities of 
 reperusing the letters, and the letters themselves will 
 probably have more consistency, and exhibit a fairer 
 specimen of the general character of the handwriting. 
 
 A witness will not be allowed to state his belief as to 
 a piece of hand^vriting being that of a particular indi- 
 vidual, where that belief is the result of a comparison of 
 the disputed writing with another written specimen of 
 the same individual produced in coiu't. The best reason 
 for rejecting such a comparison is, that the writings in- 
 tended as sj)ecimens to be compared with the disputed 
 paper, would be brought together hy a i:)arty to the 
 suit, who is interested to select such wTitings only as 
 may best serve his purpose. Besides, if such compari- 
 sons were allowed, it would open the door to the admis- 
 
PEDIAKY EVIDENCE. 273 
 
 sion of a great deal of collateral evidence, as in every 
 case it would be necessary to go into distinct evidence 
 to prove eacli specimen produced to he genuine. Upon 
 a question respecting the identity of liandwriting, the 
 court may take other papers which have been proved to 
 be the writing of the party — provided they are part of 
 the proofs in the case — and comj^are them with the dis- 
 puted WT^iting, for the purpose of forming their opinion 
 whether the disputed writing is genuine. The papers 
 being parts of the ijroofs hi the case^ are free from all 
 suspicion of undue selection, and the comparison of the 
 coiu't would, in many cases, be a better mode of ascer- 
 taining the truth than the evidence of witnesses sj)eak- 
 ing to handwriting from their memory. 
 
 It is a settled rule that where the antiquity of a writ, 
 ing purporting to bear a person's signature, makes it 
 impossible for a witness to swear that he has ever seen 
 the party write, it is sufficient that he should have be- 
 come acquainted with his manner of signing his name, 
 by inspecting other ancient ^vi'itings which bear his sig- 
 nature, provided these ancient writings have been treat- 
 ed and regularly preserved as authentic documents. A 
 witness is therefore asked whether he has inspected such 
 ancient writings in order to acquire a knowledge of the 
 character of the handwriting ; and then, whether he 
 believes the writing in question to be of the same char- 
 acter. These are extraordinary instances arising from 
 the necessity of the case. 
 
 When the genuineness of a signature is questioned, 
 the evidence of a witness, who from habit and practice 
 has acquired exjjerience and skill in judging of the gen- 
 uineness of handwriting^, and who states his belief that 
 18 
 
274 MILITAKY LAW AND C0URTS-:MARTIAL. 
 
 a particular A\Titing is in an imitative style and forged, 
 a23pears to be strictly admissible, altbougli lie is not 
 acquainted with the lland^mting supposed to be imi- 
 tated. But many decisions have given little or no 
 weight to such testimony.* 
 
 Proof of Negative, when not Necessary. In prosecu- 
 tions where it is necessary to j^rove that tbe act with 
 which the prisoner is charged, was done without the 
 consent, or against the will of some other person — as in 
 a charge of absence without leave — it is not in general 
 indispensably necessary to call that person as a witness 
 on the part of the prosecution, in order to prove the 
 negative, namely, that he did not give his consent. It 
 is now settled that the want of consent may be proved 
 in other ways. 
 
 Persons Acting in a Public Capacity. Where persons 
 acting in a j^ublic capacity have been appointed by in- 
 struments in writing, those instruments are not consid- 
 ered the primary evidence of the appointment, but it is 
 sufficient to show that they have publicly acted in the 
 capacity attributed to them. And where a party is 
 charged as bearing some particular character, the fact of 
 his having acted in that character, or his admission of 
 the fact, will be sufficient evidence, without reference to 
 his appointment being in Avriting. Upon a charge of dis- 
 obedience of orders, it is sufficient to show that in the 
 knowledge of the accused the officer giving the order 
 had previously acted in the capacity of a superior. On 
 a charge of desertion or other military offiince, it is suf- 
 ficient to prove that the accused received the i)ay, and did 
 the duties of a soldier, without proving his enlistment. 
 
 * 2 PliiUipps, pp. 595-603. 
 
SECONDARY EVIDENCE. 275 
 
 SECOND AKY EVIDENCE. 
 
 If a party intends to use a written instrument, he 
 ouglit to produce the original if he has it in his posses- 
 sion ; he cannot give secondary evidence of writings 
 until all the sources of primary evidence are exliausted. 
 And it is an established rule, that all originals must be 
 accounted for, before secondary evidence can be given 
 of any one. If the instrument is in the possession of 
 the adverse party, there are in general no means of com- 
 pelling him to produce it, however necessary it may be 
 for the prosecution of the suit or for the defence, and if 
 tlie party will not produce it, secondary evidence of its 
 contents is then admissible. But before such evidence 
 can be admitted, it must be shown affirmatively that 
 the instrument is i:i the possession of the adverse party, 
 and also that he has received notice to produce it.^ 
 
 Proof of Writing being in Po»i«se!>if>iion of Adverse Party. 
 The degree of e^ddence which may be necessary to prove 
 the fact of possession, will depend so much on the nature 
 of the transaction and on the particular circumstances 
 of each individual case, that it is scarcely possible to 
 lay do^\'Ti any general rule on the subject. 
 
 Possession is frequently presumed from the nature of 
 the paper, as well as other circumstances indicative of 
 its place of custody. The incpiiry, in the first instance, 
 may generally be detemiined by ascertaining to whom 
 the possession rightfully belongs ; for in the absence of 
 proof to the contrary, the law Avill presume tliat tlie 
 person entitled holds the custody. 
 
 AMiere a paper is in the hands of a person acting in 
 
 * 2 Phillipps. 510. 
 
276 MILITAKY LAW AND COUKTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 an independent cliaracter, and wlio lias a rigM to the 
 possession of it, notice to the party is snfficient. 
 
 Where a document lias been traced into the posses- 
 sion Q)i^])ai'ty to the ca-s-e, it lies nj^on him to show that 
 he has lawfully parted with it. But this rule does not 
 appl}', where the party has voluntarily parted with the 
 possession of a document after having recei\'ed notice 
 to produce it. 
 
 In certain cases, where the written instrument is in 
 the j^ossession of a third person, yet if there is privity 
 between such third person and the l^arty, it is deemed 
 to be virtually in his possession, and therefore a notice 
 to produce given to the party himself, will be sufficient. 
 
 1%'otice to Produce. It does not follow, that on proof 
 of the notice the party is compellable to give evidence 
 against himself; or that, if he refuses to produce the 
 paper rec^uired, such a circumstance is to be considered 
 as conclusive against him ; l)ut the consequence will be, 
 that the other party, who has done all in his j^ower to 
 supply the best evidence, will be allowed to go into evi- 
 dence of an inferior kind, and may read an examined 
 copy, or give parol evidence of the contents. 
 
 The notice to produce should refer to the documents 
 required with sufficient particularity ; but if there is no 
 reasonable doubt that the party receiving the notice 
 must have Ijeen aware of the particular instrument in- 
 tended to be produced, that is sufficient. 
 
 It is not necessary that a notice to produce should be 
 in writing ; and if a notice by parol and in writing be 
 given at the same time, it is sufficient to prove the parol 
 notice alone. 
 
 It is sufficient to serve the notice upon the party him- 
 
SECONDARY EVIDENCi:. 277 
 
 self, or Lis counsel, or upon Lis servant at liis quarters. 
 And tLe notice must be given witLin a reasonable time 
 — tLe court deciding wLetLer it Las been given witLin 
 reasonable time or not ; and tLis must depend upon the 
 vircmustances of eacL particular case. 
 
 If a party after receiving notice to produce a paper 
 wLicL is in Lis possession, refuses to do so, Le places tLe 
 otLer party under tLe difficulty of proving tLe contents 
 by some secondary proof, and witLLolds from tLe court 
 tLe original and most autLentic evidence. He cannot, after 
 tliis, give in evidence tLe original, for tLe purpose of con- 
 tradicting tLe secondary proof wLicL Las been received. 
 
 TLe regular time of calling for tLe production of pa- 
 pers, is not until tLe party wLo requires tLem Las en- 
 tered upon Lis case ; till tLat period arrives, tLe otLer 
 party may refuse to produce tLem, and tLere can be no 
 cross-examination as to tLeir contents, altliougL tLe no- 
 tice to jiroduce tLem is admitted.* 
 
 Notice to produce^ when (ii»ipeii*$e<i Avitii. WLere, from 
 tLe nature of tLe prosecution, tLe prisoner must be 
 aware tLat Le is cLarged witL tLe possession of tLe 
 document in question, a notice to produce it is unneces- 
 sary. So wLere tLe prisoner was proved to Lave said 
 tLat Le Lad destroyed tLe document in question, it was 
 Leld to be unnecessary to prove any notice to produce, 
 so as to let in secondary evidence of its contents. No- 
 tice to produce is not required, wLere tLe paper offered 
 in e\ddence is a duplicate original ; for in sucli a case, 
 tLe evidence offered is primary evidence. However, it 
 seems now to be tLe better opinion, tLat neitlier party 
 will be allowed, eitLer in tLe examination in cLief or in 
 
 * 2 riiillipps, 520-538. Roscoe, 9-11. 
 
278 MILITARY LAW AND COURTri-SlAKTlAL. 
 
 cross-examination, to inquire into the contents of a docu- 
 ment, merely because tlie opposite party has the original 
 in his possession in court at the time of the trial, and 
 declines to produce it ; and that the opposite party may 
 object to such parol evidence of the contents, on account 
 of his not having received a previous notice to produce 
 the original. 
 
 AYhere a writing is fi'om its nature not capable of 
 being transported from place to place, as in the case of 
 inscriptions or notices fixed on walls, tombstones, boards 
 and the like, secondary evidence of the inscri]3tion will 
 be received. But the principle of this exception only 
 applies to cases where the writing is a fixture. So where 
 a docimient is of a public nature, a copy of it is evidence ; 
 the production of the original is dispensed with on the 
 ground of inconvenience, and on the fact that the easy 
 detection of fraud diminishes the probal^ility of it. 
 
 Secondary evidence is also admissible of writings 
 which are j)roved to have been destroyed^ or which can- 
 not be found after due inquiry. What shall be consid- 
 ered due inquiry must depend on the particular circum- 
 stances of the case, especially upon the im2:)ortance of 
 the instrument and the usage or practice which may 
 exist respecting the custody of such documents. 
 
 The question as to the sufficiency of the search being 
 preliminary to the admissibility of the secondary evi- 
 dence, it must be shown, in general, that there has been 
 a diligent search made, such as the case naturally sug- 
 gests ; and the search must appear to have been made 
 in the proj^er place — the place ^vhere the paper was 
 likely to be found. 
 
 In the case of a useless docunwnt, the presumption is 
 
PllESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE. 2*79 
 
 tliiit it lias been destroyed. And where the loss or de- 
 struction of a paper may almost be presumed, very 
 slight evidence of such loss or destruction is sufficient. 
 Proof by witness that the i)aper in question was thrown 
 aside as useless, and that he believes it to be lost or 
 destroyed, will be sufficient to let in secondary evidence. 
 
 Where a 2:)erson has interest in destroying a paper, its 
 destruction will be j)resuraed on very slight testimony. 
 The law, it has been held, presumes that an accomplice 
 will destroy a letter serving to imj^licate him as such. 
 
 When it is the duty of the part}' in possession of a 
 document to dtposlt it in a particular place, and it is 
 not found in that place, the presumption is that it is 
 lost or destroyed. 
 
 When the paper was in the possession of ^ party who 
 is dead, his declarations as to its loss or destruction, are 
 admissible after his death. When the party in whose 
 })ossession the instrument ^vas, is alive, his declarations 
 are inadmissible, and he ought to ])e called as a witness. 
 
 As to degrees of secondary evidence, it is held thaj; 
 when the original is lost and there is a counterpart, the 
 latter should be accounted for before inferior evidence 
 is admissible. But after the loss of the different ])ai*ts 
 are proved, or these are shown to be unattainable, then 
 examined copies, or the parol evidence of witnesses, may 
 be resorted to.* 
 
 PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE. 
 
 We have thus far considered some of the general rules 
 which have been adopted in courts of law relative to 
 the exclusion of evidence. It is now pro])os('d to treat 
 
 * 2 Pliillipps, 550-568 ; Roscoe, 12, 13; Starkie, 439. 
 
280 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MAKTIAL. 
 
 of the nature or quality of evidence ; more especially 
 with regard to ])resumptive or circwmstantial proof, as 
 contradistinguislied from direct proof. 
 
 Definition. Where the fr, -ts proved are not the pre- 
 cise f^icts in issue, and the com^t is to come to a con- 
 clusion upon the facts in issue by an act of reasoning 
 from those other proved facts, the evidence in such a 
 case is said to he pre-s-iunptive. 
 
 A presumption of a fact is properly an inference of 
 that foct from other facts that are known. When the 
 fact itself cannot be proved, that which comes nearest 
 to the proof of the fact is the proof of the circumstances 
 that necessarily and usually attend such fact, and these 
 are called presumptions and not proofs ; for they stand 
 instead of the proofs of the fact till the contrary be 
 proved. Where a man is discovered suddenly dead in 
 a room, and another is found running out in haste with 
 a bloody sword, it is a violent presumption that he is 
 the murderer, for the blood, the weapon, and the hasty 
 flight, are all the necessary concomitants of such facts ; 
 and the next proof to the sight of the fact itself is the 
 proof of those circumstances that usually attend such 
 facts. The circumstances should be strong in themselves, 
 should each of them tend to throw light upon, and to 
 prove each other, and the result of the whole should be 
 to leave no doubt upon the mind that the offence has 
 been committed, and that the accused and no other 
 could be the person who committed it. That the fact to 
 be inferred often accompanies the fact proven is not 
 sufficient ; it should most usnally accompany it ; and it 
 might be said, in the absence of all circumstances, that it 
 should rarely other-\\ase happen. 
 
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE. 281 
 
 The force of presuinption.s is almost intuitively per- 
 ceived by maiikincl; and tliat princij^le of the mind 
 wliich prepares it to expect the futui'e association of cir- 
 cumstances, because it has been accustomed to find them 
 associated, cannot be accounted for, except by setting it 
 down as imposed upon us by the laAV of nature. 
 
 "What oircunistanci's will aiiioiiiit to proof can never 
 l)e matter of o-eneral definition. The lecfal test is, the 
 sufficiency of the evidence to satisfy the understanding 
 and conscience of the jury. On the one hand, absolute, 
 metaphysical and demonstrative certainty, is not essen- 
 tial to proof T)y circumstances. It is sufficient if they 
 produce moral certaint}', to the exclusion of every rea- 
 sonable doubt. Even dh'ect and positive testimony does 
 not aftbrd grounds of belief of a higher and superior 
 nature. The rule even in a capital case is, that should 
 the circumstances be sufficient to convince the mind and 
 remove every rational doubt, the jury is bound to place 
 as much reliance on such circumstances as on direct and 
 positive proof. 
 
 Witli respect to the comparative weight due to direct 
 and presumptive evidence, it has been said that circum- 
 stances are in many cases of greater force and much 
 more to be depended on than the testimony of living 
 witnesses ; inasmuch as witnesses may either be mistaken 
 themselves, or wickedly intend to deceive others ; where- 
 as circumstances and presumptions naturally and neces- 
 sarily arising out of a given fact cannot lie. But it must 
 be observed that circumstantial evidence, besides the 
 possibility of its l)eiTig perverted through the means of 
 witnesses in like manner as direct evidence, is sul)jected 
 to this additional infirmity, that it is composed of infer- 
 
282 MILITARY LAT7 AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 euces each of wliicli may be fallacious. As a general 
 principle it is certainly true, that j^ositive evidence of a 
 fact from crediVjle eye-witnesses is the most satisfactory 
 that can be produced, and the universal feeling of man- 
 kind leans to this species of evidence in preference to 
 that which is merely circumstantial. 
 
 Besides presumptions of fact, which suppose in each 
 case an independent act of reasoning, there are certain 
 p')'e8um2)tiou8 of law, which will stand good until the 
 contrary is proved. The law presumes a man to be in- 
 nocent, until the contrary is proved or appears from 
 stronger presumption. And it is a rule that illegality 
 is never to be presumed, but the presumption is that a 
 ]3arty comjjlies with the law. 
 
 There, is a general presumption in criminal matters, 
 that a person intends whatever is the natural and prob- 
 able consequence of his own actions. And it seems to 
 be clearly a presumption of law, that where an act is 
 done by one person injurious to another, malice — that 
 is, an attempt to injure — -is prima facie to be presumed 
 in the person doing the act. Thus, in every charge of 
 mui'der, the fact of killing being fii'st proved, all the cir- 
 cumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity are to be 
 satisfactorily established by the 2:)risoner, unless they 
 arise out of the evidence produced against him ; for the 
 law presumes the fact to be founded in malice unless 
 the contrary appears. 
 
 In almost every criminal case, a portion of the evi- 
 dence laid before the jury consists of the conduct of the 
 party at the time of, or after being charged with, the 
 offence. Great caution should be exercised in weighing 
 the effect of such presumptive evidence ; for an innocent 
 
PKESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE. 283 
 
 man, finding himself in a situation of difficulty, and per- 
 haps, from the circumstances of the case, of danger, is 
 sometimes induced to ado2)t a line of conduct which 
 bears with it a presumption of guilt. Flight may be 
 very strong evidence of guilt, or it may weigh nothing, 
 according to the circumstances under which it takes 
 j)hice. The legal presumption from flight is against the 
 prisoner, and it lies upon him to rebut it." 
 
 The general rules which will now be adverted to are : 
 
 First, That the evidence must be confined to the 
 points in issue ; 
 
 Secondly, That the point in issue must be proved by 
 the party who asserts the affirmative ; and 
 
 TJiirdly, That the substance only of the issue need 
 be proved. 
 
 First.— Evidence confined to the Issue. 
 
 In criminal proceedings, there is the strongest neces- 
 sity for the strict enforcement of this rule ; for where a 
 jjrisoner is charged with an offence, it is of the utmost 
 importance to him that the facts laid before the jury 
 should consist exclusively of the transaction which 
 forms the sul)ject of the charge. This rule is founded 
 in common justice, for no person can be expected to 
 answer, unpre23ared and at once, for every action of his 
 life. Notwithstanding the fact, that the sole object of 
 receiving evidence is to establish the truth, yet there is 
 sometimes much difficulty in deciding correctly what 
 particular testimony should be admitted or rejected. It 
 may be admissible in one point of view, though not in 
 another, and as it is frequently difficult to ascertain, a 
 priwi, whether proof of a particular fact offered in evi- 
 
 * 1 Phillipps, 598-G13; Starkie, 514; Roscoo, 15-20. 
 
284 MILITARY LAW AXD COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 dence will or will not become material, the usual prac- 
 tice of courts in such cases is, to give credit to the asser- 
 tion of the party who tenders such evidence, that the 
 fact will turn out to be material. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to observe, that though a cir- 
 cumstance be proper as tending to show a particular 
 fact, it is hiadmissible unless the fact itself be pertinent 
 to the question in issue. 
 
 It should also be remembered, that under the head 
 of relevancy the question is not whether the evidence 
 offered be the most convincing, but whether it tends at 
 all to illustrate the question ; and though an inquiiy 
 may be irrelevant on the examination in chief, it may 
 be afterward rendered proper and necessary by' the 
 course of a cross-examination. An inquiry into other 
 facts besides those charged, may often be totally irrele- 
 vant ; at other times they bear on the j^oint in issue, 
 and constitute presumptive proof In support of a 
 charge for malicious or disresj)ectful language addressed 
 to a commanding officer at a stated time, or in a particu- 
 lar letter ; after the words charged have been proved, 
 the prosecutor may prove also that the accused spoke or 
 wrote other disrespectful or malicious words on the 
 same suhject^ either before or afterward, or that he 2")ub- 
 lished or disseminated copies of the letter set forth as 
 disrespectful in the charge. This evidence is admissible, 
 not in aggravation of the crime charged, but for the 
 purpose of proving deliberate malice or disrespect, 
 which motives are imputed in the charge.* On a trial 
 for high treason, it being proved that the prisoner had 
 enlisted into the enemy's army, his unsuccessful attempt 
 
 * Simmons. 405. 
 
PRESUMPTIVK EVIDEIS^OE. 285 
 
 to persuade aiiotliei' to enlist was allowed in evidence, 
 as showing tlie ([uo aiiimo. 
 
 On a court-martial the prosecution is not 2)erniittcd 
 under any circumstances to examine as to general habits, 
 for the purpose of showing that the accused has a gen- 
 eral disposition to commit the same kind of offence as 
 that charged against him. It is most ol)vious that char- 
 acter not connected with the charge, cannot be admitted 
 to weigh in the scale of evidence as to the finding of 
 the court. - 
 
 cii:iraeter. Where intention is a princij)al ingredient 
 in the charge, or where circumstantial proof only is ad- 
 duced, evidence as to character bearing on the charge, 
 may be highly important. An affectionate and warm 
 evidence of character, when collected together, should 
 make a strong impression in favor of a prisoner, and 
 when those who give such a character in evidence are 
 entitled to credit, their testimony should have great 
 weight with the court. On a charge of murder, where 
 malice is essential, expressions of good-will and acts of 
 kindness on the part of the prisoner toward the deceas- 
 ed, are always considered important evidence, as showing 
 what was his general disposition toward the deceased, 
 from which it may be concluded that his intention could 
 not have been wh:tt the charge imputes. On a charge 
 of theft, character for honesty may be entitled to great 
 weight. So also on a charge implicating the courage 
 of a soldier, character for bravery and resolution might 
 be of vast importance; Init it would be manifestly 
 absurd and irrelevant, when delil)erating on a charge 
 of tlu'ft, to allow character for bi'avery to weigh in the 
 scale of proof; or, when deciding on a charge of cow- 
 
286 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 ardice, to be biased by a character of honesty. The 
 inquiry in such particular cases, ought manifestly to 
 bear some analogy and reference to the charge against 
 him. 
 
 General character is the estimation in Avhich a person 
 is held in the community where he has resided. Public 
 opinion is the question in common cases wdiere character 
 is in issue, character and reputation being the same. 
 General character, unconnected with the charge, though 
 it must be inoperative with the court except as to deter- 
 mining the nature of punishment in discretionary cases, 
 may most essentially serve the prisoner, by influencing 
 the superior in whom the power to mitigate or remit 
 the sentence is vested. And it has ever been the prac- 
 tice of courts-martial to admit evidence as to the pris- 
 oner's character, offered hy Itim^ immediately after the 
 production of his witnesses to meet the charge, whatever 
 be its nature ; though questions by the accused tending 
 to elicit such, may be frequently made in the course of 
 the investigation. A j)risoner is even permitted to put 
 in proof particular instances wherein his conduct may 
 have been puljlicly approved by superior officers.* 
 Mere letters of recommendation Avould not be evidence, 
 nor would certificates prepared for the occasion be; 
 instead of such letters, the law requires testimony on 
 oath, whether delivered orally in open court or by 
 depositions. Nor indeed, as to tliat, would ex-parte 
 affi(hivits be competent. But official letters, which ma}' 
 have been received at the termination of a particulnr 
 service or tour of duty, are a part of the res gestce, and 
 are admissible, subject, of course, to explanations.f 
 
 * Simmons, p. 4U. f Attorney-general's opinions, January 31st, 1857. 
 
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE. 287 
 
 Tlic good character of tlie party accused, satisfactorily 
 estal)lisliecl by competent witnesses, is an ingredient 
 which ought always to be sul)mitted to the considera- 
 tion of the court, together with the other facts and cir- 
 cumstances of the case. The nature of the charge, and 
 the evidence by which it is supported, will often render 
 such ingredient of little or no avail ; but the more cor- 
 rect course seems to be to leave the court-martial to 
 form their conclusion upon the whole of the evidence, 
 whether an individual whose character was previously 
 unblemished, has or has not committed the particular 
 crime for which he is called upon to answer. Still, in a 
 clear case, good character will be of no avail in the find- 
 ing. It is only in cases of doubt that such proof is 
 entitled to weight. 
 
 Evidence will not he admitted^ on the part of the pros- 
 ecution, to show the bad character of the accused, unless 
 he has called witnesses in support of his character ; and 
 even then the 2:)rosecutor cannot examine to particular 
 facts. 
 
 Witnesses as to character may be asked to state their 
 opportunities, or means, of forming an opinion as to the 
 prisoner's character. 
 
 :nutiny and Sortition. On a prosecution for a crime, 
 the proof of which is sup2:>osed to consist wholly, or in 
 pai-t, of evidence of a conspiracy entered into by the 
 accused, so that the conspiracy is to be given in evi- 
 dence against him, general evidence of the existence of 
 the conspiracy charged must be received in the first 
 instance, though it cannot affect the accused unless 
 brought home to him or t(^ his agent. 
 
 Upon the trial of a charge of mutiny, or intended 
 
288 MILITARY LAW AND COURTS-ilARTIAL, 
 
 mutiny, it is important to know liow far tlie acts or 
 declai'ations of co-mutineers in fuii;herauce of a concert- 
 ed plan, may be received in evidence against a particular 
 individual. Proof of the plot or combination must pre- 
 cede proof of declarations made by either of the alleged 
 parties, tliougli the conduct, acts, and declarations of 
 the separate parties in the planning or execution of the 
 scheme, may ])e shoAvn as evidence of the common de- 
 sign. In other words, general evidence may, in the first 
 instance, be received as a preliminary step to that more 
 particular evidence, by which it is to be sllo^vn that the 
 accused was a guilty participator in the crime. It is 
 very obvious that the rules of evidence on trials for 
 treason and conspiracy before courts of civil judicature, 
 will apply most aptly and closely to trials before courts- 
 martial for mutiny and sedition. 
 
 The existence of the conspiracy may be established, 
 either by evidence of the acts of third persons, or by 
 evidence of the acts of the prisoner, and any other ^\dth 
 whom lie is attempted to be connected, concurring to- 
 gether at the same time and for the same object. It has 
 recently been held that the prosecutor may either prove 
 the conspiracy which renders the interests of the con- 
 spirators admissible in evidence, or he may prove the 
 acts of the different j)ersons, and thus prove the conspir- 
 acy. The evidence is either direct, of a meeting and 
 consultation for the illegal purpose charged, or more 
 usually from the very natui'e of the case, circumstantial ; 
 and the evidence is more or less strong, according to the 
 publicity or privacy of the object of such concurrence, 
 and the greater or less degree of similarity in the means 
 employed to effect it. The more secret the one, and the 
 
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE. 289 
 
 greater tlie coincidence in the otlier, the stronger is the 
 evidence of conspiracy.* 
 
 In prosecutions involving a charge of conspiracies, it 
 is an cstabiiMiied rule that where several persons are 
 proved to have combined together for the same illegal 
 pui'pose, any act done by one of the party in pursuance 
 of the original concerted plan, and mth reference to the 
 common object, is, in the contemplation of the law, the 
 act of the whole party ; it follows, therefore, that any 
 waitings or verbal expressions — being acts in them- 
 selves, or accompanying and explaining other acts, and 
 so being j^art of the res gestce, and which are brought 
 home to one conspii'ator — are evidence against the other 
 conspirators, provided it sufficiently appear that they 
 were used in the furtherance of a common design. 
 
 In like manner consultations in furtherance of a con- 
 spiracy are receivable in evidence, as also letters or 
 drafts of answers to letters, and other papers found in 
 the possession of co-conspirators, and which the jury 
 may not unreasonably conclude were written in prosecu- 
 tion of a common purpose, to which the prisoner was a 
 party. For the same reason declarations or wi'itings 
 explanatory of the nature of a common oljject, in which 
 the prisoner is engaged together with others, are re- 
 ceivable in evidence; provided they accompany acts 
 done in the prosecution of such an object, arising natu- 
 rally out of these acts, and not being in the nature of a 
 subsequent statement or confession of them. 
 
 But where words or ^\Titinf's are not acts in them- 
 
 o 
 
 selves, nor part of the res gestw^ but a mere relation or 
 naiTative of some j^art of the transaction, or as to the 
 
 * Roscoe, pp. 415— 417. 
 
 19 
 
290 MILITARY LAW ATsT) COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 share wliicli otlier persons have had in the execution of 
 a common design, the evidence is not within the princi- 
 ple above mentioned : it altogether depends on the credit 
 of the narrator, who is not before the court, and there- 
 fore it cannot be received. 
 
 It is in consequence of the distinction between Avritings 
 or declarations which are a part of the transaction, and 
 such as are in the nature of subsequent statements but 
 not part of the res gestae^ that the admissibility of wi^it- 
 ings often depends on the time when they are proved to 
 have been in the possession of co-conspirators, whether 
 it was before or after the time of the prisoner's appre- 
 hension. Thus, some papers containing a variety of plans 
 and lists of names, which had been found in the house 
 of a co-conspirator, and Avhich had a reference to the 
 design of the conspii'acy and in furtherance of the alleged 
 plot, were held to be admissible evidence against the 
 prisoner ; inasmuch as there was in the case strong pre- 
 sumptive evidence that they were in the house of the 
 co-conspirator, hefrre the prisoner's apprehension: for 
 the room in which the papers were found had been 
 locked up by one of the conspii'ators. The point in 
 this case was distinguished from a point in a previous 
 case, where the papers were found after the prisoner's 
 apprehension, in the possession of persons who, possibly, 
 might not have obtained the papers till afterward. 
 
 In a prosecution against several persons for conspiracy 
 in unlawfully assembling for the purpose of exciting 
 discontent and disaffection, the material points for con- 
 sideration are, the general character iind intention of 
 the assembly, and the particular case of the prisoners 
 as connected with that general character. With this 
 
PEESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE. 291 
 
 view, it would be relevant to produce in evidence cer- 
 tain resolutions proposed by one of the prisoners at an 
 assembly recently lield at another place, for the same 
 professed object and purpose as were avowed by the 
 meeting in question, and that the defendant acted in 
 both cases as chairman. In a question of intention as 
 this is, it would be most clearly relevant to show against 
 that defendant, that at a similar meeting held for an 
 ol)ject professedly similar, such matters had passed un- 
 der his immediate auspices. 
 
 jMueh evidence is usually 23roduced upon such trials, 
 which does not relate to the particular conduct of a pris- 
 oner. Thus the acts and declarations of other conspir- 
 ators in the absence of the prisoner are admissible against 
 him ; and the prisoner may be aifected by ^\Titings from 
 other persons, which came into his custody before his 
 apprehension. In these cases, the evidence is of a direct 
 natm'e, applying to the acts in furtherance of a con- 
 spiracy, and not circumstantial, as proving only col- 
 lateral circumstances from which these acts are to be 
 inferred. 
 
 As whatever the prisoner may have done or said at 
 any meeting, alleged to have been held in pursuance of 
 the conspiracy, is admissible in evidence against him on 
 the part of the proseciLtion ; so, on the other hand, 
 any other ])art of his conduct at the same meetings will 
 be allowed to be proved in his behalf: for the intention 
 and design of the pai-ty at a particular time, are best 
 explained l)y a complete view of eveiy pai-t of- his con- 
 duct at that time. Should other acts of the prisoner, 
 besides those charged, be proved against him for the pur- 
 pose of showing his design in the affair in question, it 
 
292 MILITARY LAW AXD COURTS-MAKTIAL. 
 
 seems reasonable tliat lie should be allowed to explain 
 those acts by proof of other cotemporaneous particulars 
 of his conduct, which show that he had a different design 
 from that imputed to hmi.* 
 
 Secondly.— Onus Probaiidi— Burden of Proof. 
 
 It is a general rule of evidence, established for the 
 purpose of shortening and facilitating investigations, 
 that the point in issue is to be proved by the party 
 who asserts the affirmative, that is, the affirmative in 
 substance, not in mere form. This rule arises also from 
 the difficulty, amounting in many cases to an impossi- 
 bility, of proving a negative. Upon the party who has 
 to give such proof, is said to rest the burden of proof, 
 or, as it is technically called, the onus proljctiidi. 
 
 One of the surest tests for ascertaining upon which 
 side the affii'mative really lies, is to consider which party 
 would be successful if no e^ddence at all were given. 
 Thus, where one party charges another with a cidpable 
 omission or breach of duty, the person who makes the 
 charge is bound to prove it, though it may involve a 
 negative ; for it is one of the first principles of justice, 
 that where a party stands charged ^\-ith an offence, his 
 innocence is presumed, and the onus is upon the prose- 
 cutor. 
 
 The necessity of proving the negative must be often 
 subject to the rule, that the burden of proof lies on the 
 person who has to supj)ort his case by proof of a fact 
 which lies more peculiarly within his own knowledge, 
 and of which he is supposed to be cognizant. Thus, in 
 an action of penalties under the game laws, though 
 the ])laintiff must aver, in order to bring the defendant 
 
 * ] riiillipps, 205-209. and 773-'i7G. 
 
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE. 293 
 
 within the act, that he was not duly qualified, yet it is 
 not necessary to disprove his qualification, but it will be 
 for the defendant, if he can, to prove himself qualified. 
 If such negative evidence were necessary to support 
 the information, it would scarcely be possible in any case 
 to convict ; on the other hand, such qualification is pecu- 
 liarly Avithin the knowledge of the qualified person. 
 
 These rules were thus laid do^vn by Judge Story:* 
 " If the charge consists in a criminal neglect of duty, as 
 the law presumes the affirmative, the burden of proof 
 of the contrary is thrown on the other side. But in 
 other cases, as where the negative does not admit of 
 direct proof, or the facts lie more immediately within 
 the knowledge of the defendant, he is put to his j)roof 
 of the affirmative." 
 
 Upon a question of jurisdiction^ where the proceed- 
 ings of a coui-t of general jurisdiction are alleged, the 
 law presumes jurisdiction, and the onus of proving the 
 contrary lies with the party who undertakes to question 
 it. But with respect to courts of limited and special 
 jurisdiction, it is widely difterent ; nothing is presumed 
 in favor of their jurisdiction, and the party seeking to 
 derive advantage from their proceedings is bound to 
 show jurisdiction affirmatively.f 
 
 Tliirdly.— The Substance only of the Issue need be 
 proved. 
 
 Under the present head T^^ll be considered, the 
 quantity of evidence required in support of i)articnlar 
 averments in charges, and, consequent thereui)on, the 
 doctrine of variances. 
 
 A o^eneral mle, governing the application of evidence 
 
 * United States vs. Ilayward. 2 Gall, 284. f ^ PhiHipps, 809-822. 
 
294 MILITARY LAW A1\D COUKTS-MAKTIAL. 
 
 to the points in dispute on any issue, is that it must be 
 sufficient to prove tlie substance of the issue. And the 
 greater number of cases on this subject may be classed 
 under the two heads of divisible and descriptive aver- 
 ments. 
 
 Divisible Averiiicnt§. 
 
 Suflicicitt to prove what constitutes an OfTeuce. It is 
 a universal principle, which runs through the whole of 
 the criminal law, that it will be sufficient to prove so 
 much of the indictment as charges the defendant with 
 a substantive crime therein specified. The offence, how- 
 ever, of which he is convicted must be of the same class 
 with that with which he is charged. 
 
 On courts-martial, a prisoner charged with desertion 
 may be found guilty of absence without leave, for ab- 
 sence is the principal matter in issue, the motive and 
 design being concomitants. 
 
 On a charge of oflering violence to a superior officer 
 in the execution of his office, by discharging a loaded 
 musket at him, the prisoner may be convicted of offer- 
 ing \dolence, and a proportionate punishment may be 
 awarded for such conduct, although the evidence fail in 
 establishing that tlie rank or authority of the superior 
 officer ^^as known to the offender, or although the capi- 
 tal offence under the ai'ticles of war may not have been 
 committed in consecpience of the su}>erior officer not 
 having been in the execution of his office at the time. 
 The i)rincipal matter is the offend violence, the rank 
 and office of the person fired at being circumstances in 
 ao'iri'avation.* 
 
 Where a charge alleges that the accused did, and 
 
 * Simmons, 416. 
 
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE. 295 
 
 caused to he done a certain act, it is sufficient to prove 
 eitlier one or the otlier. 
 
 Intent. AVliere tlie intent of tlie prisoner fnrnislies 
 one of the ingredients in the oifence, and several intents 
 are laid in the indictment, eacli of which, together witlj 
 the act done, constitutes an offence, it is sufficient to 
 })rove one intent only. 
 
 Descriptive Averments. 
 
 Where a person or thing, necessary to be mentioned 
 in an indictment, is described -with circumstances of 
 greater particularity than requisite, yet these circum- 
 stances must be proved, otherwise it would not appear 
 that the person or thing is the same as that described in 
 the indictment. Thus, in an indictment for coining, 
 alleged possession of a die made of iron or steel ; in fact, 
 it was made of zinc and antimony. The variance was 
 held fatal. 
 
 And it has also been held that an allegation in an 
 indictment, which is not impertinent or foreign to the 
 cause, must be proved ; though a prosecution for the 
 oifence might be supported without such allegation. 
 
 ^anic of Party Injured. The name, both Christian 
 and sm-name, of the person upon Avhom the offence is 
 charged to have been committed, is matter of descrip- 
 tion and inust be proved as laid ; but if the name be 
 that 1 )y AN'hich he is usually called and known, it is suffi- 
 cient. Where thei'e are a fatlier and a son of the same 
 name, and that name is stated without any addition, it 
 shall be jjrhna facie intended to signify the father; 
 though it may be pi'oved that either the father or son 
 was the party intended. 
 
 It is not necessaiy that there should be any addition 
 
296 MILITARY LAW AND COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 to the name. Where a 2:)erson has a name of dignity, 
 he ought to be described by that name, and as it forms 
 part of the name itself and is not an addition merely, it 
 must be proved as laid. 
 
 Where a name which is material to state, is wi'ongly 
 spelled, yet if it be idem sonan-s with that proved, it is 
 sufficient. Thus, where the name in the indictment was 
 John WJiyiieard^ and it appeared that the real name 
 was Winya/'d, but that it was pronounced Winnyard^ 
 the variance was held to be immatei'ial. But McCann 
 for McCarn is a fatal variance. 
 
 IVaines of Third Persous. Not only must the names 
 descriptive of the prosecutor or party sustaining the 
 injury be strictly proved, but where the name of a tliird 
 person is introduced into the indictment as descriptive 
 of some person or thing, that name also must be proved 
 as laid. When surnames, with a prefix to them, are 
 ordinarily written with an al^breviation, the names thus 
 wiitten in an indictment are sufficient. Where the 
 name of a third person is stated in an averment, un- 
 necessarily introduced, and which may therefore be re- 
 jected as surplusage, a variance ^vill not be material. 
 
 Mode of Coiniuittinyr Oirences. In general the de- 
 scrijitive averments of the mode in which an offence has 
 been committed, do not require to be strictly proved, 
 if, in sulistance, the evidence supports the allegation. 
 Thus, in murder, it is always sufficient, if the mode of 
 death proved agree in substance with that charged. 
 Therefore, though where the death is occasioned by a 
 particular weapon, the name and description of the 
 weapon must be specified ; yet, if it appear that the 
 party was killed l)y a different weapon, it maintains the 
 
 ( 
 
PEESUirPTIVE EVIDENCE. 297 
 
 indictment; as if a wound or hniise be alleged to be 
 given ^^ntli a sword, and it prove to be with an axe or 
 staff, this difference is immaterial. And the same if the 
 death be laid to be by one soii; of poisoning, and in 
 truth it be by another. When the indictment was for 
 assaulting a person with a certain offensive weapon, 
 commonly called a tvooden staffs and it was proved to 
 have been with a stone, it was held well, for the two 
 weapons produce the same sort of mischief, viz.: by 
 blows and bruises. Though the weapon need not be 
 proved to be the same, yet it must appear that the 
 species of killing was the same. Thus, if the prisoner 
 be indicted for poisoning, it will not be sufficient to 
 prove a death by shooting, starving, or strangling. 
 
 Persons Committing tlie Offence. So also mth regard 
 to the person by whom the offence is committed, it is 
 sufficient to charge him mth that which is the legal 
 effect of the act which he has committed. Therefore, 
 where an indictment charges that A gave the mortal 
 stroke, and that B and C were present aiding and abet- 
 ting, if it appeared in e^ddence that B was the person 
 who gave the stroke, and that A and C were j^resent 
 aiding and abetting, they may all be found guilty of 
 murder or manslaughter, as circumstances may vary the 
 case. The identity of the person supposed to have 
 given the stroke is but a circumstance, and in this case 
 a very immaterial one — the stroke of one being in con- 
 sideration of law the stroke of all. The person giving 
 the stroke is no more than the hand or instrument by 
 which the others strike. 
 
 Averments not ^Tiateriai. The general rule with re- 
 gard to immaterial averments has been thus stated : if 
 
298 MILITARY LAW AIS^D COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 an avermeut may he entirely omitted ^\'it]ioiit affecting 
 tlie charge against the j^risoner, and ^^^thout detriment 
 to the indictment, it will be considered as surplusage, 
 and may be disregarded in evidence ; as, where the 
 name of a person or place is unnecessarily introduced, it 
 need not be proved. 
 
 Averments as to Time. It is a rule that it is not 
 necessary to prove the time precisely as laid, unless that 
 particular time is material or forms an ingredient of the 
 offence itself. This is the constant course of proceeding 
 in criminal prosecutions from the highest offence to the 
 lowest ; although every material fact must be alleged in 
 the indictment to have occurred at a certain time. 
 
 Simmons* cites the case of a soldier who was tried for 
 havino; deserted on the 19th October, 1833, when in 
 fact he had deserted on the 19th October of the preced- 
 ing year, but was still illegally absent on the date men- 
 tioned in the charge. The court was recommended by 
 the then judge advocate general to come to a specific 
 finding, stating the facts which appeared in evidence as 
 above detailed, and to find the prisoner guilty of the 
 charge, mth the exception of so much of it as imported 
 that he deserted ou or about the particular date men- 
 tioned. 
 
 Upon the case of a soldier who was proved to have 
 committed the offence laid to his charge, but not upon 
 the day specified, the judge advocate general remarked 
 that " it Avas perfectly com23etent to the court to find 
 the prisoner guilty under the charge so framed, altliough 
 the offence was proved to have occurred on a different 
 day, but that in such case it was in strictness the dut}' 
 
 * rago 423. 
 
 A 
 
PEESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE. 299 
 
 of tlie court to specify in tlieir finding on what clay tlie 
 offence took place." 
 
 Avermciit!i as to Place. On tlie trial of offences be- 
 fore tlie ordinary courts of law, it is sufficient to prove 
 tliat tlie offence was committed in the county in which 
 it is laid to have been committed, and a mistake in the 
 particular place in ^vhicll an offence is laid will not be 
 material. And although the offence must be proved to 
 have been committed in the county where the j)risoiier 
 is tried, yet after such proof the acts of the prisoner in 
 any other county, tending to establish the charge against 
 him, ^re admissible in evidence.* 
 
 This rule is fixed in this country by the constitution, 
 which directs that in all criminal prosecutions, the ac- 
 cused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, 
 by an impartial jury of the state and district ^vhere the 
 crime shall have been committed, which district shall 
 have been previously ascertained by law.f In trials by 
 comi;s-martial no such limitation has been fixed, as re- 
 gai'ds place, and therefore such courts have a jurisdiction 
 co-extensive with the country ; and a crime committed 
 in one geographical department may be tried in any 
 other. Their jurisdiction, then, only depends upon the 
 person offending and upon the offence charged. 
 
 It is nevertheless necessary that the place where the 
 offence is supposed to have been committed should be 
 laid with certainty, and this because such allegation 
 may, at times, be essential to the defence of the accused; 
 but a variance between the proof of the place where the 
 crime was committed and the place as laid in the charge, 
 should not of necessity ac(piit the prisoner; it is held 
 
 * Roscoe, pp. 98-110. f Vlth Amendment. 
 
300 MILITARY LAW AI^D COUETS-irAETIAL. 
 
 sufficient to identify the accused witli tlie peipetration 
 of tlie offence. A soldier accused of deserting the ser- 
 ^dce from one place, on the 1st day of June, but who on 
 trial was clearly shown to have deserted on the specified 
 day from a different place, would justly be convicted ; 
 for the essence of the crime is made out, and the place 
 whence he deserted makes no part of the offence, but is 
 a mere circumstance of description. But if the evidence 
 exhil^ited the time and place as so variant from those 
 stated in the charge, that there was a j^ossibility of the 
 prisoner having repeated the offence, he would certainly 
 be acquitted, because the act charged and the act j^-oved 
 are distinct offences.* 
 
 To lay the place in a charge, enables the accused to 
 prove an alihi. When a prisoner is charged with com- 
 mitting an offence, and he can show his absence from the 
 particular place at the time, he is said to prove an alibi. 
 Before coui'ts-martial such a defence does not avail, 
 where the crime is clearly made out to have been com- 
 mitted by him at the time stated, although at a different 
 place, for the place has been wi'ongfully stated — the 
 crime and criminal clearly proved. But where the 
 crime and 2:)lace, and not the criminal, have l^een put in 
 proof, the prisoner may prove an alihi by showing that 
 at the time of the commission of the offence at that 
 place he was at another place. This wuuld acquit him. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. 
 
 Witnesses at courts-martial are invariably examined 
 in open court in the presence of each member, and of 
 the parties to the trial. The court is thereby enabled 
 
 * De Hart, pp. 367, 368. 
 
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. 301 
 
 to observe tlieii' demeanor, inclination, and understand- 
 ing ; points essential to tlie formation of a correct judg- 
 ment as to tlie value of their testimony. The adverse 
 party is also afforded an opportunity of ol^jecting to 
 their competency, or of trying their credibility by cross- 
 examination. 
 
 On courts-martial no witness \s> ijermitted to oe present 
 during the examination of another, to j^revent the influ- 
 ence which the testimony given by one may tend to pro- 
 duce in another, and also to render collusion difficult 
 between them. In general, the court will, on the appli- 
 cation of either of the parties, direct that all the wit- 
 nesses but the one under examination shall leave the 
 coui*t, and this right may be exercised at any period of 
 the trial. This rule does not extend to the counsel, who, 
 upon the request of the prisoner, may remain and still 
 be examined as a Avitness, his assistance being necessary 
 to the proper conduct of the defence. A surgeon — or 
 other professional person — who is called to give an opin- 
 ion as a matter of skill, upon the circumstances of the 
 case, may be allowed to remain in court during the trial 
 till the medical opinion of other witnesses begins. If a 
 witness should remain in court or return to it after being 
 directed to withdraw, it is for the court to decide as to 
 the admission or rejection of his testimony. K admit- 
 ted, the cii'cumstance may aifect his credibility. 
 
 It is almost a matter of right for the opposite party 
 to have a witness out of court, while a discussion — 
 legal argument — is going on as to his evidence. 
 
 It is competent to a court-martial to confront any two 
 or more adverse witnesses, that is, to call into court at 
 the same time, any two or more contradictory witnesses, 
 
302 ^MILITARY LAW AXD COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 and to endeavor to reconcile tlieir testimon}^ hy reading 
 over to eacli the evidence of the other, and by requiring 
 an explanation of such parts as are inconsistent or 
 contradictory, in order to ascertain as far as possible the 
 real truth of the case ; but this proceeding would not 
 be advisable, till the close of the cross-examination.* 
 
 A memher of a court-martial, as a judge or juror, is a 
 competent witness, and may be sworn to give evidence 
 in favor or against a prisoner, at any stage of the pro- 
 ceedings ; it is, however, to be avoided, if foreseen. It 
 need scarcely be observed, that no communication by a 
 member in closed court, can be received ; he must be 
 sworn as other witnesses, in o^Qn court, and be subject 
 to cross-examination ; neither ought the private knowl- 
 edge of any fact to influence the particular verdict of a 
 member, for he is sworn to well and truly try and de- 
 termine, strictly according to the e^-idence before the 
 coui't, and not according to the evidence concluded in 
 his OTVTi breast. 
 
 It is a question frequently agitated, whether or not 
 courts-martial are competent to originate evidence / that 
 is, to call into court a witness not produced by the par- 
 ties before the court. There is no doubt but that the 
 court may, at any period of the trial, recall any -witness 
 for further examination, if any question occur to the 
 court or is suggested by either of the parties ; and it 
 would also seem that the custom of the service would 
 justify the calling, as a ^vitness, any indi\ddual alluded 
 to in the evidence before the court, who may be at hand, 
 and whose examination might afford a probability of 
 elucidating a special point which may be dubious ; but 
 
 * Adye. 101. 
 
 J 
 
EXAMINATIOlSr OF WITNESSES. 303 
 
 it is apprehended that this is the utmost extent to which 
 a court would be authorized to o-o.* 
 
 o 
 
 The 2)rope)' time to object to the conq^etency of a wit- 
 ness, is when he is called, and before being sworn, l)ut 
 objections to his competency never come too late, but 
 may be made in any stage of the case. Still, a party 
 who is cognizant of the interest of a witness; at the time 
 he is called, is bound to make his objection in the first 
 instance ; he must make it as soon as the interest is dis- 
 covered and he lias an opportunity of doing it ; other- 
 wise he will be considered as having waived the objec- 
 tion. 
 
 The strict and regular method of raising an objection 
 to the competency of a witness, is by examining him on 
 the voir dire ^ that is, he should be sworn t - ansAver all 
 such questions as the court shall demand of him — -his 
 statement on such examination not being evidence in the 
 case pending. The examination of the mtness in the 
 cause may be stoj)ped at any time, in order that he may 
 be sworn upon the voir dire and examined as to his 
 competency ; yet this formal proceeding is not necessary, 
 and if it should appear, wliile the witness is still under 
 examination, that he is incompetent, the objection may 
 be taken, and his testimony excluded or stricken from 
 the case. 
 
 Where the supposed incompetency arises from defect 
 of understanding, as in the instance of lunatics, idiots, 
 <fec., or from defect of religious principle, as 'in the case 
 of atheists, young children, <fec., inasmuch as the very 
 ground of incompetency assumes that the proposed vni- 
 ness has no perception of the obligation of an oath, it 
 
 * Simmons, 464. 
 
304 MILITAKY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 follows that tlie preliminary in(]^uiry ujdou tlie voir dire 
 cannot be upon oath. 
 
 The objection to a witness's competency may he sup- 
 ported^ either by the examination of the witness or by 
 independent evidence, and it rests upon the party object- 
 ing, to prove the incompetency of the witness. A\Tiere 
 you resort to the voir dire you are concluded ; and if 
 you fail to show incompetency in this mode you cannot 
 do it by other evidence of any kiud, in the course of the 
 same trial. So if you inquire of the witness as to his 
 interest, on his general oath, this is equivalent to an in- 
 quiry upon the voir dire, and equally prevents a resort 
 to any other mode. If you have attempted to show in- 
 competency by evidence derived fi-om any other source 
 than the \vitness, you shall not afterward put him on his 
 voir dire. But where you have failed in youi* attempt 
 by other testimony to show one set of facts upon which 
 you rely for incompetency, you may still show his in- 
 terest on another set of facts, even on his voir dire. 
 
 When the objection arises from a ^vitness's examina- 
 tion on the voir dire, the objection may be removed by 
 the statement of the party himself on fui'ther examina- 
 tion. But where the party calling a witness attempts 
 to remove the objection, not by a further examination 
 of the witness, but by other independent proof, he will 
 be subject to all the ordinary rules of evidence.^ 
 
 Order of Examination. When a witness has been 
 regidarly sworn, he is first examined by the party who 
 produces him ; after which the other party is at liberty 
 to cross-examine ; and then the party who first called 
 him may re-examine. This closes the examination of 
 
 * Phillipps, 104. 
 
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. 305 
 
 tlie Witness. The office of tlie examination in cliief is, 
 to lay before the court the whole of the information of 
 the witness that is relevant and material ; the office of 
 cross-examination is, to search and sift, to correct, and 
 supply omissions ; the office of re-examination, to ex- 
 plain, to rectify, and put in order 
 
 Exaiuiuation iii Chief. On the examination in chief 
 of the witness, you are bound at your peril to ask all 
 material questions in the first instance ; and if you omit 
 this, it cannot be done in reply. No new question can 
 be put in reply unconnected with the subject of the 
 cross-examination, and which does not tend to explain 
 it. If a question as to any material fact has Tjeen omit- 
 ted upon the examination in chief, the usual course is 
 to suggest the question to the court, which will exercise 
 its discretion in putting it to the witness.* 
 
 Leading questions^ that is, such as instruct a witness 
 how to answer on material points, are not allowed on 
 the examination in chief, as the witness is supposed to 
 be in the interest of that party. A question to a wit- 
 ness is leading, which puts into his mouth the words to 
 be echoed back, or plainly suggests the answer which 
 the party wishes to get from him. Putting it in the 
 alternative form, as whether or not a party did a certain 
 act, specifying it, does not remove the ol)jection to a 
 question being leading, and it is a mistake to suppose 
 such only is a leading question, to which yes or no would 
 be a conclusive answer. The pei-nicious influence of 
 leading questions is most felt, and most to be feared, 
 when the oljjeet of an inquiry is to ascertain the details 
 of a conversation, admission, or agreement ; and more 
 
 * Starkie, 150. 
 20 
 
306 MILITAllY LAW AND COURTS-MAETIAL. 
 
 rigor is, in such cases, justified in confining tlie direct 
 examination to its appropriate rules. 
 
 Questions which are merely introductory, and which, 
 whether answered in the afiii-mative or negative, would 
 not be conclusive on any of the points in the case, are 
 not liable to the ol^jection of leading. A\Tiere an omis- 
 sion is caused by want of memory, a suggestion may be 
 permitted to assist it. 
 
 The general rule is relaxed^ wherever it clearly ap- 
 pears that the witness is hostile, or that a more search- 
 ing mode of examining him is necessary to elicit the 
 truth. In such cases, the com-t may deem it right to 
 allow the examination in chief to assume something of 
 the form of cross-examination — and how far this may be 
 by leading questions rests entirely in the discretion of 
 the court. 
 
 It seems doubtful to ivhat extent leading questions 
 may be put in an examination in chief, when the object 
 is to prove that, another witness, examined on the op- 
 posite side, has on some former occasion made a different 
 and contradictory statement. The most unexceptiona- 
 ble and proj^er course appears to be, to ask the witness 
 who is called to j^rove a contradictory statement made 
 by another witness, what that otlier witness said relative 
 to the transaction in question, or what account he gave, 
 and not in the first instance to ask in the leading form, 
 whether he said so and so, and used such and such ex- 
 pressions.* 
 
 Cross-exaiiiiiiatioii. The power of cross-examination 
 is generally allo\ved to afford one of the best securities 
 against incomplete, garl)led, or false evidence ; great lati- 
 
 * 2 PhiUipps, 888-895. 
 
EXAMIiSTATION OF WITNESSES. 30? 
 
 tilde, therefore, is allowed iu tlie mode of j)ntting (jiies- 
 tious. Leading questions are admitted, in wliicli larger 
 powers are given to the examining party than in the 
 original examination. The form of a cross-examination, 
 however, dejoends in some degree, like that of an exam- 
 ination in chief, upon the bias and disposition evinced 
 by the witness under interrogation. If he should dis- 
 play a zeal against the party cross-examining him, great 
 latitude with regard to leading questions may with pro- 
 priety be admitted. It has been held that you may 
 put a leading question to an unwilling witness on the 
 examination in chief, at the discretion of the court, but 
 you may always put a leading question in cross-exam- 
 ination, whether a witness be unwilling or not. But iu 
 this latter case, the witness cannot Ije asked a leading 
 question in respect to new matter, the same rules hold- 
 ing as on the examination in chief. 
 
 Irrelevant questions will not be allowed to l:)e put to 
 a witness on cross-examination, although they relate to 
 facts opened by the other party but not proved in evi- 
 dence. Nor can a witness be cross-examined as to any 
 facts which, if admitted, would be collateral and wholly 
 irrelevant to the matters in issue, for the purpose of 
 contradicting him 1)y other evidence, and in this manner 
 to discredit his testimony. And if the witness answers 
 such an irrelevant question before it is disallow^ed or 
 ^vithdrawn, evidence cannot afterward be admitted to 
 contradict his testimony on the collateral matter. 
 
 Counsel cannot assume that a witness has made a 
 statement on his examination in chief, which he has 
 not made ; or \)\\i a question which assumes a fact not 
 in proof 
 
308 inLITARY LAW AXD COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 Where a witness is called merely to jDioduce a docu- 
 ment, wliich can be proved Ly another, lie is not subject 
 to cross-examination. But wliere the party j^roducing 
 the document is sworn, the other side is entitled to 
 cross-examine him, although he is not examined in chief. 
 So where a witness has been asked only one immaterial 
 question, and his evidence is stopped, the other party 
 has no right to cross-examine him. Where a witness is 
 sworn and gives some evidence, if it be merely to prove 
 an instrument, he is to be considered a witness for all 
 purposes. 
 
 It is not admissible in cross-examination to represent 
 the contents of a letter^ and to ask a witness whether he 
 wrote such a letter to any person with such contents, or 
 contents to the like effect, without having first shown 
 the witness the letter, and his admitting that he wrote 
 such a letter ; a witness may, however, be asked what a 
 party to the trial has said as to the contents of a paper, 
 without producing it. One or more lines of a letter 
 may be shown to a witness, and he may be asked 
 whether he wrote such part of a letter ; but if the wit- 
 ness deny that he wrote such part exhibited, he cannot 
 be examined as to the contents of the letter. If a wit- 
 ness admits a letter to be of his handwriting, he cannot 
 be questioned whether statements, such as may be sug- 
 gested, are contained in it ; the whole letter must be 
 read in evidence.* 
 
 Rc-oxainiiiatioii. A re-examination, which is allowed 
 only for the purpose of explaining any focts Avhieh may 
 come out in cross-examination, must of course be con- 
 fined to the subject matter of the cross-examination. It 
 
 * Simmons, p. 478. 
 
EXA^HNATlO^f OF WITNESSES. 309 
 
 is not to extend to any new matter, unconnected ^vith 
 the cross-examination, and wHcli mi2:lit liave been in- 
 quired into on the examination in chief, but must be 
 confined to questions which may be proper to draw out 
 an explanation of the sense and meaning of the ex2:)res- 
 sions used by the i^dtness on cross-examination, if they 
 be in themselves doubtful ; and also of the motive by 
 which the witness was induced to use those expressions. 
 IVIcnioraiicluni to Rcfrc§Ii Witness's IWemory. A "wit- 
 ness may refer to an informal memorandum taken down 
 by himself, in order to refresh his memory. So he may 
 refer to any entry or memorandum he has made shortly 
 after the occurrence of the fact to which it relates, al- 
 though the entry or memorandum would not of itself be 
 e\'idence. At present, however, the case would seem to 
 warrant the statement, that, generally, an original mem- 
 orandum made by the witness presently after the facts 
 noted in it transpired, and proved by the same witness 
 at the trial, may be read by him, and is evidence to the 
 court of the facts contained in the memorandum, al- 
 though the witness may have totally forgotten such 
 facts at the time of the trial,* So Avhere a witness tes- 
 tifies that he was present at a conversation and made a 
 memorandum of it immediately after it took place ; that , 
 he had now no recollection of all the particulars, but 
 that he had no douT)t that the facts stated in the memo- 
 randum were true ; and that he sliould have sworn to 
 them fi-om recollection within a short time afterward — 
 the memorandum was admitted in evidence, in connec- 
 tion ^A'ith his testimon}', to show the particulars of the 
 conversation. 
 
 * 2 Phillpps, p. 918. 
 
310 .^IILITARY LAW AND COUKTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 But a witness cannot refresli his memory by extracts 
 from a book, though made by himself; or from a copy 
 of a book; for the rule requiring the best evidence 
 makes it necessary to produce the original, though used 
 only to refresh the memory. Where a witness on look- 
 ing at a wiitten paper has his memory so refreshed that 
 he can speak to the facts from a recollection of them, 
 his testimony is clearly admissible, although the paper 
 may not have been written by him. Where the wdtness 
 cannot speak without referring to a book, the book must 
 be produced in coiu't. If produced the other party has 
 a right to see it, and cross-examine from it. If he cross- 
 examines to other entries than those referred to by the 
 witness, he makes them part of his own evidence.* 
 
 PKIVILEGE OF WITNESS IN REFUSING TO 
 ANSWER. 
 
 1. Where flie Answering might subject him to a Crim- 
 inal ciiarge, &c. A witness cannot be compelled to 
 answer any question which has a tendency to expose 
 him to a penalty, or to any kind of punishment, or to a 
 criminal charge. He is exempted by his privilege from 
 answering not only what will criminate him directly, 
 but also w^hat has any tendency to criminate him ; and 
 the reason is, because otherwise question might be put 
 after question, and though no single question may be 
 asked which dii'ectly criminates, yet enough might be 
 got from him by successive questions whereon to found 
 against him a criminal charge. In Burr's trial the rule 
 was finally thus stated 1 )y Chief-Justice Marshall : " It 
 is the province of the court to judge whether any direct 
 
 * Roscoe, p. 170. 
 
PErV'ILEGE OF REFUSmG TO ANS^^TSK. oil 
 
 answer to tlie question wliicli may he proposed, will 
 furuisli evidence ao-ainst tlie witness. If such answer 
 may disclose a fact, whicli forms a necessary and essen- 
 tial link in tlie cliain of testimony, Avliicli would be suf 
 ficient to convict him of any crime, lie is not bound to 
 answer it so as to furnisli matter for tliat conviction. 
 In sucli case, tlie witness must himself judge what his 
 answer will be ; and if he say on oath that he cannot 
 answer, he cannot be compelled to answer." The privi- 
 lege of refusing to answer is the privilege of the witness, 
 not of the party. It belongs to the witness on a princi- 
 ple of natural justice. The right to refuse to answer in 
 such cases is a right of self-defence ; if he has a right to 
 defend himself against a criminal charge, he must have 
 a full right not to expose himself to such a charge by 
 giving evidence, and not to be accessory to his own 
 ruin. The court, therefore, always feels it to be its 
 duty to qjDprise a witness of his privilege, -as soon as a 
 question is asked which may place him in danger. 
 
 Whether questions, the answers to which would ex- 
 pose the witness to punishment, ought not to be allowed 
 to he put^ or whether the witness ought merely to be 
 protected fi'ora ansioering such questions, does not ap- 
 pear to be settled. Upon principle it would seem that 
 questions tending to expose the witness to punishment^ 
 may he put, as Avell as questions tending to degrade his 
 character. The ground of objection in the first case is, 
 not that the question has a tendency to degrade him, 
 but that advantage may be taken of his answer in some 
 future proceeding against him, and the rule that no 
 person is bound to accuse himself is urged. This objec- 
 tion is however completely removed by permitting the 
 
312 MILITARY LAAV AIS^D COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 witness not to answer tlie question, for liis silence would 
 not in any future proceeding be any admission of guilt. 
 The question may then be regarded as one simj^ly tend- 
 ing to degrade the witness, and would come within the 
 rule which appears to be now well established, that it 
 may be iJiit^ though the witness is not comj^ellaljle to 
 give an answer, or that if he does give an answer, the 
 party examining him must l)e satisfied with it.^^ 
 
 A witness may xoavve his privilege^ and answer at his 
 peril. If the witness answers questions on the exami- 
 nation in chief, tending to criminate himself, he is bound 
 to answer on the cross-examination, though the answer 
 may implicate him in a transaction affecting his life. 
 So, if the witness begins to answer he must proceed, 
 and if he be cautioned that he is not compellable to 
 answer a question which may tend to criminate him, 
 and chooses to answer it, he is l)ound to answer all 
 questions relative to that transaction. But Phillippsf 
 quotes a case in which the majority of the judges thought 
 that it made no difference to the rio-ht of the witness to 
 
 o 
 
 protection, that he had chosen to answer in part ; being 
 of opinion that he was entitled to it at whatever stage 
 of the inquiry he chose to claim it. 
 
 From the nature of the right it may be inferred, that 
 he will Ije at lil)ert3^ to answer, or refuse to answer, any 
 questions at his discretion ; and that his consenting to 
 answer some questions ought not to bar his right to de- 
 mur to others. On the other hand, it is only reasona- 
 ble that he should not be allowed, by any arbitrary use 
 of his privilege, to make a partial statement of facts to 
 the prejudice of either party. 
 
 * Roscoc, 173. t 2, 936. 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
PErVTLEGE OF REFUSING TO ANSWER. fJlo 
 
 An accomplice^ admitted to give evidence against liis 
 associate in guilt, is iDound to make a full and fixir con- 
 fession of the whole truth as to the offence which is the 
 subject matter of the prosecution. If he waives the 
 privilege, he does so fully in relation to that act ; but he 
 does not thereby waive his privilege of refusing to re- 
 veal other unla\^^ul acts, wholly unconnected with the 
 act of which he has spoken, even though they may be 
 material to the issue. 
 
 Where a witness is entitled to decline an-sioering a 
 question, and does decline, the rule is said to be, that 
 this not answering can have no effect with the jury. So 
 where a witness demurred to answer a question, on the 
 ground that he had been threatened with a prosecution 
 respecting the matter, and the counsel in his address re- 
 marked upon the refusal, the judge interposed and said, 
 that no inference was to be drawn from such a refusal. 
 
 2. ^Vhere Aiis^wcriiig may Decade Witiic§s's Cliaracter. 
 The point has frequently been raised and argued, whether 
 a witness on cross-examination, is bound to give an an- 
 swer to questions put that are not relevant to the mat- 
 ters in issue, but the answering of which will have a 
 direct tendency to degrade the witness's character, 
 though it may not subject him to a criminal prosecu- 
 tion. If a "^^dtness, for instance, were asked whether he 
 had not suffered some infamous punishment, or if any 
 other question of the same kind were asked, imputing 
 criminality to the witness in some past transaction and 
 not relevant to the matters in issue, would he be com- 
 pellable to answer ? The doubt only exists where the 
 questions put are not relevant to the matter in issue, 
 but are merely propounded for the pm-jDose of throwing 
 
314 MILITAEY LAW AND COUETS-MAETIAL. 
 
 light on tlie witness's character; for if the transaction- 
 to which the witness is interi'ogated form any part of 
 the issue, he will be obliged to give evidence, however 
 strongly it may reflect upon his character. There is no 
 fixed rule on this point, but the weight of authority 
 seems to be, that questions tending to degrade the char- 
 acter of the witness and not relevant to the matter in 
 issue, may be put, but that the witness is not l;)ound to 
 answer. If, however, the \^'itness chooses to answer such 
 questions, the party who asks them must be bound by 
 his answers, and cannot be allowed to falsify" them by 
 evidence. 
 
 MODES OF IMPEACHmG THE CKEDIT OF 
 
 WITNESSES. 
 
 The credit of a witness may be impeached, either 
 simply by questions put to him on a cross-examination, 
 or by calling other witnesses to impeach his credit. No 
 witness's character for veracity can be impeached except 
 by contradictory proof ^ or by proof affecting his cliarac- 
 ter fcrr veracity. 
 
 1. Proof of Oencral Character for Veracity. The 
 party against whom a witness is called, may examine 
 other witnesses as to his general character. To impeach 
 the credit of a mtness you can only examine to his 
 general character, and not to j)articular facts — that is, 
 not to particular tacts which, if true, would impeach his 
 character for veracity; and the reason given is, that 
 every man may be supposed capable of supporting his 
 general character, but it is not likely he should be pre- 
 pared to answer to particular facts, without notice ; and 
 
lilPEACniNG CREDIT OF WITISTESSES. 315 
 
 unless his general character and behavior are in issue, lie 
 has not notice. 
 
 In impeaching the credit of a witness, the interroga- 
 tions cannot embrace both his moral and military char- 
 acter and standing, as, for instance, " Does the accused 
 belong to witness's company, and if so, what character 
 does he bear in the company V The regular mode of 
 examining into the general character of a witness is, by 
 inquiring of the Avitnesses who are called to impeach it, 
 whether they have the means of knowing his general 
 character for veracity, and whether, with such knowl- 
 edge, they would believe him on his oath. In reply, 
 the other party may cross-examine the mtnesses who 
 have given evidence against the general character of his 
 witness, as to their means of knowledge and the grounds 
 of their opinion ; or may by fresh eA^dence support his 
 own witness's general character for veracity, or may 
 attack the character of the impeaching witness. 
 
 2. Proof of Contradictory Statemcuts. The credit 
 of a witness may be impeached by proof that he has 
 made statements out of court on the same subject, con- 
 trary to what he swears at the trial, provided he has 
 been previously cross-examined as to such alleged state- 
 ments ; and provided also, that such statements are ma- 
 terial to the question in issue. This evidence of contra- 
 dictory statements is produced for the purpose of ex- 
 citing doubt and distrust against his testimony as to the 
 particular transaction on which the discrepancy arises, 
 and in some cases, to raise suspicion as to the truth of 
 his testimony in general. These contradictoiy state- 
 ments may be either verbal or in writing." 
 
 * 2 Phillipps' Ev., 955-959. 
 
316 IvnLITARY LAW AND COUETS-MARTIAL. 
 
 Coiitraciictingr his ovt'ii ivitiicss. It is clear tliat tlie 
 party calling a witness, will not be allowed to give gen- 
 eral evidence that he is not to be believed on his oath. 
 But a party is not to be sacrificed to his witness ; he is 
 not represented by him, nor ought to be identified with 
 him, or bound by all he may say. On the other hand, 
 a party ought to be placed under such restrictions as 
 may be necessary for preventing unfair or dishonest 
 practice. If a party, not acting himself a dishonest 
 part, is deceived by his witness, is he to be restrained 
 from laying the true state of the case before the court ? 
 Further, if a witness, whether from mistake, ignorance, 
 or design, gives evidence unfavorable to the party who 
 calls him, is the party to be restrained from calling other 
 witnesses to prove facts difi'ereut from those which he 
 has represented ? The ride is, that where a witness is 
 called, and makes statements contrary to those which 
 are expected from him, the party calling him ma}^ prove 
 the facts in question by other witnesses ; for such facts 
 are evidence in the case, and the other witness is not 
 called directly to discredit the first, but the impeach- 
 ment of his credit is incidental and consequential only. 
 Where a witness is contradicted by the party calling 
 him, as to certain facts, it is not necessar}^ that the re- 
 mainder of his evidence should l)e repudiated, because 
 a party cannot prove his o^^•n witnes-* to be of such a 
 general bad character as would I'ender him unworthy 
 of credit. 
 
 As. to Belief. A witness can depose to such facts 
 only as are within his own knowledge, but even in giv- 
 ing evidence in chief, tliere is no rule which requires a 
 ^yitness to dej^ose to facts with an expression of certainty 
 
OPINION OF WITNESSES. 317 
 
 that excludes all doiiht in liis mind. It is the constant 
 practice to receive in evidence a witness's belief of the 
 identity of a person, or of the fact of a certain writing 
 being the handwriting of a particular individual, though 
 the witness will not aver positively to these facts. A 
 witness must not swear to impressions simply ; that is 
 descending to a test too vague. It should be persuasion 
 or belief founded on facts within his own knowledge. 
 The testimony of a ^vitness that he thought the ])laintiff 
 told him so and so — iva-s' very co)iflde7it he said so, but 
 would not swear that he did — is a statement of the 
 strength of the recollection of a fact by the witness, and 
 is admissible evidence.* 
 
 As to Opinion. Although, in general, a witness can- 
 not be asked what his opinion w^on a particular ques- 
 tion is, since he is called for the speaking as to facts 
 only, yet where matter of shill and judgment is involved, 
 a person competent to give an oj)inion may be asked 
 what that opinion is. On a question of mental caj^acity 
 the opinion of an intimate acquaintance, not a medical 
 man, is competent when connected with facts and cir- 
 cumstances within his knowledge, and disclosed by him 
 in his testimony as the foundation of his opinion. It is 
 not, in general, competent for witnesses to state o2:)inions 
 or conclusions from facts, whether such facts are known 
 to them or derived from the testimony of others. The 
 exceptions to the inile are confined to questions of 
 science, trade, and a fe^v others of the same nature. 
 Witnesses conversant in a particular trade may be 
 allowed to speak to a prevailing practice in that trade, 
 and scientific persons may give their opinion on matters 
 
 * Roscoc, Crim. Ev., 179. 
 
318 MILITARY LAW AXD COURTS-MARTIAL. 
 
 of science, and medical men may be asked whether, in 
 their judgment such and such appearances are symptoms 
 of insanity or other disease, <fec.* 
 
 The ojyinions of an ex^pert are evidence, but in-ither 
 conclusive nor exclusive proof. Every person of judi- 
 cial training knows that the o2:)inions of medical or other 
 scientific or practical experts often differ, and that they 
 sometimes err in a body as if by some ej^idemic conta- 
 gion. There is a judicial case involving scientific in- 
 quiry, in the printed record of which are the answers 
 of twenty-three experts to the same question ; twenty- 
 two of them give decision one way, and a single one of 
 them gives a reverse decision ; and in the conclusion, it 
 was proved, beyond all controversy, that he alone was 
 right and that all the others erred. In general, the 
 023inions of an expert are of more or less weight and 
 value, according to the person's constitution of mind^ 
 and the degree of completeness of the collection of per- 
 tinent facts on Avhich his mind acts.f 
 
 Every question is admissil)le of a military man, 
 where it is founded on local knowledge or circumstances 
 which are not within the reach of all the members of 
 the court, as where he gives his opinion as to the exact 
 execution of a certain plan of operations, this opinion 
 beinc: based on facts witliin his actual knowledcre. But 
 where it is merely a question of military science, to 
 affect the officer who is undergoing his trial, it is obvi- 
 ous that the court is met for no other piu'pose but to try 
 that ; and that they have before them the facts in evi- 
 dence, on which they are to ground their conclusions. 
 
 * Roscoe, Crim. Ev., 179, 180. 
 
 f Attorney-General Cushing's Opinion. May 17th, 1855. 
 
WITNESSES. 319 
 
 In conclusion, it may be remarked tliat in weighing 
 the conflicting testimony of witnesses, it onght not to 
 excite surprise that witnesses of fair reputation should 
 differ in minute points in the relation of facts. An 
 exact accordance in the narration of minute particulars 
 would rather create suspicion, and tend to evince previ- 
 ous contrivance and consj)iracy. The non-agreement of 
 witnesses, therefore, on points which are not of a j^romi- 
 nent and striking nature, in many cases, may be no im- 
 peachment of their general credibility, and ought to be 
 carefully distinguished from mlful and corrujDt mis- 
 representations.* 
 
 * Simmons, 481. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Form of Order appointing a General Court-JTIartial. 
 
 TiiK last 2iaragi'a})li omitted when the court can be kejDt iij) 
 with thirteen members. 
 
 War Departiiext, 
 Apjutant-General's Office, Washington, Ftb. 2Gth, 186-. 
 Special Orders, / 
 No. i| 
 
 A general court-martial is hereby appointed to meet at AVest 
 Point, New York, on the 5th day of March, proximo, or as soon 
 
 thereafter as practicable, for the trial of • , and 
 
 such other prisoners as may be brought before it. 
 
 Detail for the Court : 
 
 1. 8. 
 
 2. 9. 
 
 3. 10. 
 
 4. • 11. 
 
 5. 1± 
 
 6. 13. 
 
 T. ■ Judge Advocate. 
 
 No other officers than those named can be assembled with- 
 out manifest injury to the service. 
 
 By order of the Secretary of "War, 
 
 L. T.. Adjutant-General . 
 
324 APPE]S^DIX. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 Form of Order appointing a Oarrisou or Regimental 
 Conrt-^TIartial. 
 
 Head-Quarters, 
 West Poixt, N. Y.. March 1st, 186-. 
 Orders, ) 
 No. \ 
 
 A garrison court-martial will convene at this post to-morrow 
 
 morning, at 10 o'clock, for the trial of , and such 
 
 other prisoners as may be brought before it. 
 
 Detail f 01' the Court: 
 
 3. By order of Col. B. 
 
 E. C. B., Adjutant. 
 
 I 
 
 ]^o. 3. 
 
 Form of Order-appointing a Court of Inquiry. 
 
 War Departmext. 
 
 Adjutaxt-Gexeral's Office, Washixgtox, , 1S6-. 
 
 Special Orders, ) 
 No. f 
 
 By direction of the President of the United States (or, at the 
 
 instance of Major ), a court of inquiry is hereby appointed 
 
 to meet at ■ on , or as soon thereafter as jDracticable, to 
 
 investigate the facts and circumstances connected with, (fcc, 
 and also give their opinion upon the facts wdiich may be de- 
 del oped. 
 
 Detail for the Court : 
 
 1. 
 
 2. 
 
 3. 
 
 eliulge Advocate. 
 
 By order of the Secretary of "War, 
 ?? L, T., Adjutant-General. 
 
FOEMS. 325 
 
 No. -i. 
 
 Form of Order appointing a Board for retiring Disabled 
 Offleers. 
 
 War Departmext, 
 
 Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, , 186-. 
 
 Special Orders, } 
 No. f 
 
 I. By direction of the President, a board of officers will 
 assemble in this city at 12 m. on the 2Stli instant, or as soon 
 thereafter as practicable, to examine into and determine the 
 facts in relation to the natnre and occasion of the disability of 
 such officers disabled to perform military service as may be 
 brought before it. 
 
 The board will be guided in its action by such sections of 
 the act of Congress approved August 3, 1861, providing for it, 
 as may be applicable to the subject. 
 
 Detail for the Board : 
 
 1. 
 
 2. 
 
 3. 
 
 4. 
 
 5. 
 
 -, will act as recorder of the board. 
 By order, 
 
 L. T., Adjutant-General. 
 
 No. 5. 
 inodc of recording the Proceeding^) of a Court-ITIartial. 
 
 Proceedings of a general court-martial, which convened at 
 ^Yest Point, Xew York, by virtue of the following Special 
 Order. 
 
 {Ilcre insert a copy of the order.) 
 
326 APPENDIX, 
 
 West Poixt, X. Y., 3farch 5th. 186-. 
 10 A. M. Tlie court met pursuant to the foregoing order. 
 Present. 
 
 1. Lieut.-Col. G. D. R., Ordnance Department. 
 
 2. Major C. C. A., IStli Regiment of Infantry. 
 
 3. Captain K. G., 5th Regiment of Cavahy. 
 
 4. Captain D. D. P., 4th Regiment of Artillery. 
 
 5. Captain J. G. P., Toj^og. Engineers. 
 
 &c. etc. 
 
 Captain II. E. M., lOtli Regiment of Infantry, Judge Advo- 
 cate. 
 
 Ahs€7iL 
 
 Captain A. B. C, 1st Regiment of Artillery. 
 Captain S. B., Assistant Adjutant-General. 
 
 The Judge Advocate read a communication from Captain C, 
 stating the cause of his absence, &c. ; the letter is appended 
 and marked . 
 
 " The cause of Captain B.'s absence not known." 
 
 The court then proceeded to the trial of Lieutenant X. T., 
 
 Regiment of Infantry, who was called before the court, and 
 
 having heard the order aj^pointing the court read, was asked, 
 if he had any objection to any member named in the order. 
 
 Tlie accused objected to Captain , and stated his cause 
 
 of challenge as follows : 
 
 (Here insert the statement.) 
 
 Captain remarked that, &c. 
 
 The court was cleared, the challenged member retiring, and 
 after due deliberation the doors were opened, the accused and 
 challenged party present, and the decision of the court was 
 announced by the judge advocate, " That the challenge is sus- 
 tained as sufficient, and that Captain is excused from 
 
 serving as a member of the court." 
 
 The accused having no objections to any of the other mem- 
 bers, the court was then, in his presence, duly sworn by the 
 judge advocate, and the judge advocate was duly sworn by the 
 president of the court. 
 
FORMS. 827 
 
 Tlie accused applied to the court to be permitted to introduce 
 M. 'N., Esq., as liis counsel, which application was granted, and 
 he appeared as counsel for the accused.* 
 
 The accused. Lieutenant X. Y., Eegimcnt of Infantry, 
 
 was arraigned on the following charge and specification. 
 
 Chakge. — Drunkenness on duty. 
 
 Sj)ecificatio7i.— In this, that he, Lieutenant X. Y., of the 
 
 Regiment of Lifantry, was drunk whilst on duty at company 
 drill. All this at on or about the lOtli day of Janu- 
 ary, 186-. 
 
 To which charge and specification the accused pleaded as 
 follows : 
 
 To the specification — " Not guilty." 
 
 To the CHAKGE — " Not guilty."t 
 
 Captain O. P., 5th Artillery, a witness for the prosecution, 
 was duly sworn. 
 
 Question by judge advocate. 
 
 Answer. 
 
 Question by judge advocate. 
 
 Answer. 
 
 Question by defence. 
 
 Answer. 
 
 Question by defence. 
 
 Answer. 
 
 Question by judge advocate. 
 
 Answer. 
 
 Question by the court. 
 
 Answer, etc. 
 
 Tlie prosecution here closed. 
 
 Lieutenant R. S., 7th Lifantry, a witness for the defence, was 
 duly sworn. 
 
 Question by defence. 
 
 Answer. 
 
 * Application for delay or postponement of trial must now be made, 
 f All persons present in court, who have been summoned as witnesses, are now 
 directed to withdraw and remain in wailing untri called for. 
 
328 APPENDIX. 
 
 Question by judge advocate. 
 
 Answer. 
 
 Question by defence. 
 
 Answer. 
 
 Question by the court. 
 
 Answer, tfcc. 
 
 Tlie accused having no further testimony to offer, requested 
 until to-morrow to prepare his final defence. The court grant- 
 ed his request, and adjourned to meet again at 10 o'clock a. m., 
 tr)-raorrow, the 6th inst. 
 
 West Point, N. Y., March m, 186-. 
 
 10 A. M. The court met pursuant to adjournment. Present, 
 same members as yesterday, the judge advocate, and the ac- 
 cused and his counsel. 
 
 The proceedings of yesterday having been read by the judge 
 advocate, the accused, Lieutenant X. Y., presented the written 
 
 address (appended and marked ), which was read by his 
 
 counsel in his defence. 
 
 The judge advocate submitted the case to the court without 
 remark.* 
 
 The court was then cleared for deliberation, and having ma- 
 turely considered the evidence adduced, find the accused. Lieu- 
 tenant X. Y., of tlie Regiment of Lifantry, as follows : 
 
 Of the specification — " Guilty." 
 
 Of the CHARGE — "Guilty." 
 
 And the court do, therefore, sentence him. Lieutenant X. Y., 
 of the Kegiment of Infantry, to he casliiered. 
 
 G. D. P.., 
 II. E. M., Lieutenant-colonel of Ordnance^ 
 
 Captain 10th Infantry, President. 
 
 Judge Advocate. 
 
 * Should the judge advocate intend to reply, he here notifies the court, and may 
 ask for requisite time for preparation. 
 
 I 
 
FOUMS. 329 
 
 There being no further business before them the court ad- 
 journed sine die. 
 
 G. D. E., 
 II. E. M., Lieutenant- colonel of Ordnance, 
 
 Capain 10th Infantry, President. 
 
 Judge Advocate. 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 Form of General Order coiifirmiiig; or disapproving the 
 Proceedings of a General Court-IUartial. 
 
 War Department, 
 Adjutant-Gexeral's Office, Washington, March 30tJi, 1S6-. 
 
 Gexeral Orders, ) 
 No. f 
 
 I. At the general court-martial which convened at West 
 
 Point, N. y., pursuant to " Special Orders," ISTo. — , of , 
 
 186-, from the War Department, and of which Lieutenant- 
 Colonel G. D. R., Ordnance Department, is president, was 
 
 arraigned and tried. Lieutenant X. Y., of the Eegiment 
 
 of Infantry, on the following charge and specification : 
 
 Charge. — Drunkenness on duty. 
 
 Specification. — In this, that he. Lieutenant X. Y., of the 
 
 Regiment of Infantry, was di'unk whilst on duty at company 
 
 drill. All this , on or about the lOtli day of January, 
 
 1S6-. 
 
 To which charge and specification the accused pleaded as 
 follows : 
 
 To the specification — " Not guilty." 
 
 To the CHARGE — " Not guilty." 
 
 FINDINGS OF THE COURT. 
 
 Tlie court, after having maturely considered the evidence 
 adduced, find the accused, Lieutenant X. Y., — — Regiment of 
 Infantry, as follows : 
 
330 APPENDIX. 
 
 Of the specification — " Guilty." 
 Of the CHARGE — " Guilty.'' 
 
 SENTENCE. 
 
 And the court do, therefore, sentence him, Lieutenant X. Y., 
 — Regiment of Infantry, '■'■to he cashiered.'''' 
 
 II. In conformity with the 65th of the rules and articles of 
 war, the proceedings of the foregoing court-martial have been 
 transmitted to the Secretary of War, and by him laid before 
 the President, by whom they have been confirmed. 
 
 III. Lieutenant X. Y., accordingly, ceases to be an officer 
 of the army from this date. 
 
 lY. The general court-martial of which Lieutenant-Colonel 
 G. D. R. is president, is dissolved. 
 
 By order of the Secretary of War, 
 
 L. T., 
 Adjutant-General. 
 
 No. 7. 
 
 Form of Judge Advocate's Certificate. 
 
 I certify that Major A. B. C, 5th Infantry, has, from the 5th 
 to the 10th February, 1S6-, both days inclusive, been in attend- 
 ance as member of a general court-martial which convened at 
 Fort Monroe, Ya., February 5th, 186-, by virtue of " Special 
 Orders," No. — , from the War Department, Adjutant-General's 
 
 Office, Washington, , 1S6-. 
 
 D. E. F., 
 Lieutenant and Judge Advocate. 
 FoKT Monroe, Ya., February lO^A, 1S6-. 
 
FOKMS. 331 
 
 No. 8. 
 
 Forms of Charges and Specifications under dlfTerent 
 Articles of War. 
 
 All charges are licaded as follows : 
 
 CHAUGKS AND SPECIFICATIONS PKEFEKRED AGAINST : 
 
 Charge. — Violation of the seventh article of xoar. 
 
 Specification. — In this : That lie, Private D , of com- 
 pany G Mounted Riflemen, did begin, or cause, a mutiny in 
 company G Mounted Riflemen, and in the execution or fur- 
 therance of which, he, the said D , did resist the lawful 
 
 authority of his superior, Sergeant "W" , of company G 
 
 Mounted Riflemen, and did, with a revolving pistol, then and 
 
 there shoot and kill the said Sergeant W , who, being in the 
 
 execution of his offlce, was endeavoring to quell the disorderly 
 
 conduct of the said D and other soldiers : This at the camp 
 
 of said company at the , Texas, on or about the thirtieth 
 
 day of June, in the y(!ar one thousand eight hnndred and fifty - 
 five. 
 
 Charge. — Violation of the ninth article of loar. 
 
 Spec ffi cat 1071. — In this : That he, W. II., an enlisted soldier 
 in the service of the United States, acting corporal of company 
 D 2d Infantry United States army, did offer violence against 
 Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel C , captain 3d Regiment of In- 
 fantry United States army, M-hile in the execution of his office, 
 l)y discharging at him, the said Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel 
 
 C , a loaded musket, thereby causing his death. This on 
 
 the road from San Diego, California, to Camp Yuma, Cali- 
 fornia, on or about the 6th day of June, 1S5-. 
 
 CiiAiiGE. — Disohedience of Orders. 
 
 Specifiication. — In this : That he. First Lieutenant A. B., 1st 
 Regiment of Infantry, L^nited States army, having received or- 
 ders from the C^juimanding General of the army, in Xew York, 
 on the Felu'uary, 1S5-, to proceed on the March, 
 
332 APPENDIX. 
 
 1 85-, to join his company, did disobey said orders ; and did, 
 without leave and in disobedience of said orders, remain absent 
 from his com])any, and from duty, till on or about the — Jnly, 
 185-. 
 
 Charge. — Deserlion. 
 
 Specification. — In this : That he, J. C, an enlisted soldier 
 in the service of the United States, private of company D, 2d 
 Infantry, United States army, did desert the said service from 
 
 , on or about the 31st day of May, 185-, and did 
 
 remain absent from said service until delivered up as a prisoner 
 at the , on or about the 16th day of June, 1S5-. 
 
 Charge. — Misapplication and emhezzlement of j^ublic money 
 intrusted to Mm. 
 
 Specification. — In that he, Captain D. E. F at 
 
 on , did then and there take, convert to his use, misapply 
 
 and embezzle a large sum, that is to say, twenty thousand 
 seven hundred and one dollars and two cents ($20,701.02), 
 public money of the United States, intrusted to him for the 
 service of the department. 
 
 Charge. — Breach of arrest. 
 
 Specification. — In this: that Major G. II , after being 
 
 placed in arrest by General B., in Special Orders, dated Sep- 
 tember 1st, 1861, did leave his confinement before he was set 
 at liberty by his commanding officer or by a superior officer, 
 by going beyond the limits assigned to him by orders, dated 
 September 1st, 1861, and signed by General B., commanding, 
 
 &c. This at or near , on or about the 3d September, 
 
 .1861. 
 
 Charge. — Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. 
 
 Specification. — In this: that he, A. B , did positively 
 
 deny, to one or more commissioned officers, tliat he had played 
 at cai'ds with private C, or any other enlisted man of the com- 
 mand, which denial was false. This at Camp , on or about 
 
 the , 1862. 
 
FORMS. 333 
 
 Under the OOtli article of war, " all crimes not capital, and 
 all disorders and neglects, to the prejudice of good order and 
 military discipline^'''' must be taken cognizance of by courts- 
 martial. Therefore any crime, disorder, or neglect, not speci- 
 fied in some one of the other articles, must be charged undei* 
 this general article, the 99th, thus : 
 
 " Conduct to the prejudice of good order and military disci- 
 pline." 
 
 " ISTeglect of duty, to the prejudice of good order and military 
 discipline." 
 
 " Insubordinate conduct, to the prejudice of good order and 
 military discipline."" 
 
 "Tyrannical conduct, to the prejudice of good order and mil- 
 itary discipline." " 
 
 " Disorders and neglects, to the prejudice of good order antl 
 military disci})line," (fee, &c., &c. 
 
 Charge. — Insuhordinate conduct^ to the prejudice of good 
 order and military discipline. 
 
 Specification 3d. — In that he, the said , having received 
 
 from the War Department, in a letter dated January 10, 185-. 
 instructions in regard to breaches of discipline, with orders to 
 jiublish said instructions to the Department of Texas, he, the 
 
 said , did, at San Antonio, Texas, on the 8th of February. 
 
 1S5-, in contempt of the obedience and submission due to the 
 said decision of the President, accompany the publication to 
 the troops under his command, with a commentary on the in- 
 structions designed to contradict and refute them, and denounc- 
 ing them as a "poison," and appealing from the order of the 
 President, to the troops under his command. 
 
334 APPENDIX. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COXSTITUTIOX OF THE 
 UNITED STATES, AND ITS AMENDMENTS. 
 
 Article I. Section 8. Tlie Congress shall have ])Ower 
 
 11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and 
 make rules concerning captures on land and water ; 
 
 12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of 
 money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years ; 
 
 14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the 
 land and naval forces ; 
 
 *15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the 
 laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions ; 
 
 16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the 
 militia, and for governing such part of them as may be em- 
 ployed in the service of the United States, * * * ; 
 
 17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, 
 * * * over all places purchased by the consent of the legisla- 
 ture of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of 
 forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-vards, and other needful build- 
 ings; * * *. 
 
 Section 9. 
 
 2. The privilege of the writ of haheas corjyiis shall not be 
 suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the 
 public safety may require it. 
 
 Article II. Section 2. 
 
 1. The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the 
 army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the 
 several states, when called into the actual service of the United 
 States ; * * *, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and 
 pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases 
 of impeachment. 
 
 Section 3. 
 
 1. Treason a<2:ainst the United States, shall consist only of 
 
EXTEACTS FEOM THE CONSTITUTION, ETC- 335 
 
 levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giv- 
 ing them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of 
 Treason, nnless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same 
 overt act, or on confession in open court. 
 
 AMENDMENTS. 
 
 Akticle IL a well regulated militia, being necessary to the 
 security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear 
 arms, shall not be infringed. 
 
 Akt. in. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered 
 in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of 
 war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 
 
 Akt. V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, 
 or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indict- 
 ment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or 
 naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of 
 war or public danger ; nor shall any person be subject for the 
 same oftence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ; nor 
 shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness 
 against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
 without due process of law ; * * * . 
 
 Art. VI. In all criminal prosecutions, tlie accused shall 
 enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial 
 jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been 
 committed, which district sliall have been previously ascer- 
 tained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of 
 the accusation ; to be confronted with the witnesses against 
 him ; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his 
 favor, and to have assistance of counsel for his defence. 
 
 Akt. VIII. Excessive bail shall not be reipiired, nor 
 excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments 
 inflicted. 
 
336 APPENDIX. 
 
 AETICLES OF WAR. 
 
 AN ACT FOR ESTABLISHING RULES AND AETICLES FOR THE GOVERN- 
 MENT OF THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES.* 
 
 Section 1. Be it enacted^ hy the Senate and House of Rep- 
 resentatives of the United States of America^ in Congress assem- 
 hied, That, from and after the passing of this act, the following 
 shall be the rules and articles bj which the armies of the 
 United States shall be governed : 
 
 Article 1. Every officer now in the army of the United 
 States shall, in six months from the passing of this act, and 
 every officer who shall hereafter be appointed shall, before he 
 enters on the duties of his office, subscribe these rules and reg- 
 ulations. 
 
 Art. 2. It is earnestly recommended to all officers and sol- 
 diers diligently to attend divine service ; and all officers who 
 shall behave indecently or irreverently at any place of divine 
 worship shall, if commissioned officers, be brought before a 
 general court-martial, there to be publicly and severely repri- 
 manded by the president ; if non-commissioned officers or sol- 
 diers, every person so offending shall, for his first offence, forfeit 
 one-sixth of a dollar, to be deducted out of his next pay ; for 
 the second offence, he shall not only forfeit a like sum, but be 
 confined twenty-four hours ; and for every like oftence, shall 
 suffer and pay in like manner ; which money, so forfeited, shall 
 be applied, by the captain or senior officer of the troop or com- 
 pany, to the use of the sick soldiers of the company or troop to 
 which the offender belongs. 
 
 Art. 3. Any non-commissioned officer or soldier who shall 
 use any profane oath or execration, shall incur the penalties 
 expressed in the foregoing article ; and a commissioned officer 
 
 * These rules and articles, with the exceptions indicated by the notes, annexed 
 to articles 20, 55, G5, 87, and section 2, remain unaltered, and in force at present. 
 
 i 
 
ARTICLES OF WAR. 337 
 
 shall forfeit and pay, for each and every such offence, one dol- 
 lar, to be applied as in the preceding article. 
 
 Art. 4. Every chaplain commissioned in tlie army or armies 
 of the United States, who shall absent himself from the duties 
 assigned him (excepting in cases of sickness or leave of absence), 
 shall, on conviction thereof before a court-martial, be fined not 
 exceeding one month's pay, besides the loss of his pay during 
 his absence ; or be discharged, as the said court-martial shall 
 judge proper. 
 
 Akt. 5. Any officer or soldier wlio sliall use contemptuous 
 or disrespectful words against the President of the United 
 States, against the Vice-President thereof, against the Congress 
 of the United States, or against the Chief Magistrate or Legis- 
 lature of any of the United States, in which Ik may be quar- 
 tered, if a commissioned officer, shall be cashiered, or otherwise 
 pmiished, as a court-martial shall direct; if a non-commissioned 
 officer or soldier, he shall suifer such punishment as shall be 
 inflicted on him by the sentence of a court-martial. 
 
 Akt. 6. Any officer or soldier who shall behave himself with 
 contempt or disrespect toward his commanding officer, shall be 
 punished, according to the nature of his offence, by the judg- 
 ment of a court-martial. 
 
 Art. 7. Any officer or soldier who shall begin, excite, cause, 
 or join in, any mutiny or sedition, in any troop or company in 
 the service of the United States, or in any party, post, detach- 
 ment, or guard, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as 
 by a court-martial shall be inflicted. 
 
 Art. 8. Any officer, non-commissioned officer, or soldier, 
 who, being present at any mutiny or sedition, does not use his 
 utmost endeavor to suppress the same, or, coming to the knowl- 
 edge of any intended mutiny, does not, without delay, give 
 information thereof to his commanding officer, shall be pun- 
 ished by the sentence of a court-martial with death, or other- 
 wise, according to the nature of his offence. 
 
 Art. 9. Any officer or soldier who shall strike his superior 
 officer, or dra-\v or lift up anv weapon, or offer any violence 
 22 
 
338 APPENDIX. 
 
 against liim, being in tlie execution of his office, on any pre- 
 tence -whatsoever, or sliall disobey any lawful command of his 
 superior officer, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as 
 Bhall, according to the nature of his offence, be inflicted upon 
 him by the sentence of a court-martial. 
 
 Akt. 10. Every non-commissioned officer or soldiei", who 
 shall enlist himself in the service of the United States, shall, at 
 the time of his so enlisting, or within six days afterward, have 
 the articles for tlie government of the armies of the United 
 States read to him, and shall, by the officer who enlisted him, 
 or by the commanding officer of the troop or company into 
 which he was enlisted, be taken before the next justice of the 
 peace, or chief magistrate of any city or town corporate, not 
 being an officer of the army, or where recourse cannot be had 
 to the civil magistrate, before the judge advocate, and in his 
 presence -shall take the following oath or affirmation : " I, A. 
 B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be), that I 
 will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and 
 that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their 
 enemies or opposers whatsoever; and observe and obey the 
 orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of 
 the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and arti- 
 cles for the government of the armies of the United States." 
 Which justice, magistrate, or judge advocate is to give to the 
 officer a certificate, signifying that the man enlisted did take 
 the said oath or affirmation. 
 
 Art. 11. After a non-commissioned officer or soldier shall 
 have been duly enlisted and sworn, he shall not be dismissed 
 the service without a discharge in writing ; and no discharge 
 sranted to him shall be sufficient which is not signed bv a field 
 officer of the regiment to wliich he belongs, or commanding 
 officer, where no field officer of the regiment is present ; and 
 no discharge shall be given to a non-commissioned officer or 
 soldier before his term of service has expired, Init by order of 
 the President, the Secretary of War, the commanding officer of 
 a department, or the sentence of a general court-martial ; nor 
 
ARTICLES OF WAR. 339 
 
 shall a commissioned officer be discharged the service hut by 
 order of the President of the United States, or by sentence of a 
 general court-martial. 
 
 Akt. 12. Every colonel, or other officer commanding a regi- 
 ment, troop, or company, and actually quartered with it, may 
 give furloughs to non-commissioned officers or soldiers, in such 
 numbers, and for so long a time, as he shall judge to be most 
 consistent with the good of the service ; and a captain, or 
 other inferior officer, commanding a troop or company, or in 
 any garrison, fort, or barrack of the United States (his field offi- 
 cer being absent), may give furloughs to non-commissioned 
 officers or soldiers, for a time not exceeding twenty days in six 
 months, but not to more than two persons to be absent at the 
 same time, excepting some extraordinary occasion should re- 
 quire it. 
 
 Akt. 13. At every muster, the commanding officer of each 
 regiment, troop, or company, there present, shall give to the 
 commissary of iliusters, or other officer who musters the said 
 regiment, troop, or company, certificates signed by himself, 
 signifying how long such officers, as shall not appear at the 
 said muster, have been absent, and the reason of their absence. 
 In like manner, the commanding officer of every troop or com- 
 pany shall give certificates, signifying the reasons of the ab- 
 sence of the non-commissioned officers and private soldiers ; 
 which reasons and time of absence shall be inserted in the mus- 
 ter-rolls, opposite the names of the respective absent officers 
 and soldiers. The certificates shall, together with the muster- 
 rolls, be remitted by the commissary of musters, or other offi- 
 cer mustering, to the Department of War, as speedily as the 
 distance of the place will admit. 
 
 Akt. 14. Ever}" officer who shall be convicted before a gen- 
 eral court-martial of having signed a false certificate relating 
 to the absence of either officer or private soldier, or relative to 
 his or their pay, shall be cashiered. 
 
 Akt. 15. Every officer who shall knowingly make a false 
 muster of man or horse, and every officer or commissary of 
 
340 APPENDIX. 
 
 musters who sliail willingly sign, direct, or allow the signing 
 of muster-rolls, wherein such false muster is contained, shall, 
 upon proof made thereof, by two witnesses, before a general 
 court-martial, be cashiered, and shall be thereby utterly disa- 
 bled to have or hold any office or employment in the service of 
 the United States. 
 
 Art. 16. Any commissary of musters, or other officer, who 
 shall be convicted of having taken money, or other thing, by 
 way of gratification, on mustering any regiment, troop, or com- 
 pany, or on signing muster-rolls, shall be displaced from his 
 office, and shall be thereby utterly disabled to have or hold 
 any office or employment in the service of the United States. 
 
 Aet. 1Y. Any officer who shall presume to muster a person 
 as a soldier who is not a soldier, shall be deemed guilty of hav- 
 ing made a false muster, and shall suffer accordingly. 
 
 Akt. 18. Every officer who shall knowingly make a false 
 return to the Department of War, or to any of his superior 
 officers, authorized to call for such returns, of the state of the 
 regiment, troop, or company, or garrison, under his command ; 
 or of the arms, ammunition, clothing, or other stores thereunto 
 belonging, shall, on conviction thereof before a court-martial, 
 be cashiered. 
 
 Art. 19. The commanding officer of every regiment, troop, 
 or independent company, or garrison, of the United States, 
 shall, in the beginning of every month, remit, through the 
 proper channels, to the Department of War, an exact return of 
 the regiment, troop, independent company, or garrison, under 
 his command, specifying the names of the officers then absent 
 from their posts, with the reasons for and the time of their ab- 
 sence. And any officer who shall be convicted of having, 
 through neglect or design, omitted sending such returns, shall 
 be punished, according to the nature of his crime, by the judg- 
 ment of a general court-martial. 
 
 Art. 20. All officers and soldiers who have received pay, or 
 have been duly enlisted in the service of the United States, 
 and shall be convicted of having deserted the same, shall suffer 
 
ARTICLES OF WAR. 341 
 
 death, or sucli other punishment p,s, by sentence of a court- 
 martial, shall be inflicted.* 
 
 Akt. 21. Any non-commissioned officer or soldier who shall, 
 without leave from his commanding officer, absent himself from 
 his troop, company, or detachment, shall, upon being convicted 
 thereof, be punished according to the nature of his offence, at 
 the discretion of a court-martial. 
 
 Art. 22. 'No non-commissioned officer or soldier shall enlist 
 himself in any other regiment, troop, or company, without a 
 regular discharge from the regiment, troop, or company in 
 which he last served, on the penalty of being reputed a desert- 
 er, and suffering accordingly. And in case any officer shall 
 knowingly receive and entertain such non-commissioned officer 
 or soldier, or shall not, after his being discovered to be a de- 
 serter, immediately confine him, and give notice thereof to the 
 corps in which he last served, the said officer shall, by a court- 
 martial, be cashiered. 
 
 Akt. 23. Any officer or soldier who shall be convicted of 
 having advised or persuaded any other officer or soldier to de- 
 sert the service of the Ignited States, shall suffer death, or such 
 other punishment as shall be inflicted upon him by the sen- 
 tence of a court-martial. 
 
 Art. 24. No officer or soldier shall use any reproachful or 
 provoking speeches or gestures to another, upon pain, if an 
 officer, of being put in arrest ; if a soldier, confined, and of 
 asking pardon of the party offended, in the presence of his com- 
 manding officer. 
 
 Art. 25. No officer or soldier shall send a challenge to an- 
 other officer or soldier, to fight a duel, or accept a challenge if 
 sent, upon pain, if a commissioned officer, of being cashiered ; 
 if a non-commissioned officer or soldier, of suffering corporeal 
 punishment, at the discretion of a court-martial. 
 
 Art. 26. If any commissioned or non-commissioned officer 
 commanding a guard shall knowingly or willingly suffer any 
 person whatsoever to go forth to fight a duel, he shall be pun- 
 
 * Modified by act of 29th May, 1830, and see act of August 5th, 1861, sec. 2. 
 
342 APPENDIX. 
 
 islied as a challenger; and all seconds, promoters, and carriers 
 of challenges, in order to duels, shall be deemed principals, and 
 be punished accordingly. And it shall be the duty of every 
 officer commanding an army, regiment, company, post, or de- 
 tachment, who is knowing to a challenge being given or ac- 
 cepted by any officer, non-commissioned officer, or soldier, un- 
 der his command, or has reason to believe the same to be the 
 case, immediately to arrest and bring to trial such offenders. 
 
 Akt. 27. All officers, of what condition soever, have power 
 to part and quell all quarrels, frays, and disorders, though the 
 persons concerned should belong to another regiment, troop, or 
 company ; and either to order officers into arrest, or non-com- 
 missioned officers or soldiers into confinement, until their proper 
 superior officers shall be acquainted therewith ; and whosoever 
 shall refuse to obey such officer (though of an inferior rank), or 
 shall draw his sword upon him, shall be punished at the discre- 
 tion of a general court-martial. 
 
 Art. 28. Any officer or soldier who shall upbraid another 
 for refusing a challenge, shall himself be punished as a chal- 
 lenger; and all officers and soldiers are hereby discharged 
 from any disgrace or opinion of disadvantage which might 
 arise from their having refused to accept of challenges, as they 
 will only have acted in obedience to the laws, and done their 
 duty as good soldiers who subject themselves to discipline. 
 
 Art. 29. 'No sutler shall be permitted to sell any kind of 
 liquors or victuals, or to keep their houses or shops open for the 
 entertainment of soldiers, after nine at night, or before the beat- 
 ing of the reveille, or upon Sundays, during divine service or 
 sermon, on the penalty of being dismissed from all future sut- 
 ling. 
 
 Art. 30. All officers commanding in the field, forts, barracks, 
 or garrisons of the United States, are hereby required to see 
 that the persons permitted to suttle shall supply the soldiers 
 with good and wholesome provisions, or other articles, at a 
 reasonable price, as they shall be answerable for their neglect. 
 
 Aet. 31. No officer commanding in any of the garrisons, 
 
ARTICLES OF WAR. 343 
 
 forts, or barracks of the United States, sliall exact exorbitant 
 prices for houses or stalls, let out to sutlers, or connive at the 
 like exactions in others; nor by his own autliority, and for his 
 private advanta^-e, lay any duty or imposition upon, or be in- 
 terested in, the sale of any victuals, liquors, or other necessaries 
 of life brought into the garrison, fort, or barracks, for the use 
 of the soldiers, on the penalty of being discharged from the 
 service. 
 
 Art. 32. Every officer commanding in quarters, garrisons, 
 or on the march, shall keej) good order, and, to the utmost of his 
 power, redi-ess all abutcs or disorders which maybe committed 
 by any officer or soldier under his command ; if, upon complaint 
 made to him of officers or soldiers beating or otherwise ill-treat- 
 ing any person, or disturbing fairs or markets, or of commit- 
 ting any kind of riots, to the disquieting of the citizens of the 
 United States, he, the said commander, who shall refuse or 
 omit to see justice done to the offender or offenders, and repa- 
 ration made to tlie party or ])arties injured, as far as part of the 
 offender's pay shall enable him or them, shall, upon proof 
 thereof, be cashiered, or otherwise punished, as a general court- 
 martial shall direct. 
 
 Akt. 33. When any commissioned officer or soldier shall be 
 accused of a capital crime, or of having used violence, or com- 
 mitted any offence against the person or property of any citizen 
 of any of the United States, such as is punishable l)y the known 
 laws of the land, the commanding officer and officers of every 
 regiment, troop, or company, to which the person or persons so 
 accused shall belong, are hereby required, upon application 
 duly made by, or in behalf of the party or parties injured, to 
 use their utmost endeavors to deliver over such accused person 
 or persons to the civil magistrate, and likewise to be aiding and 
 assisting to the officers of justice in apprehending and securing 
 the person or persons so accused, in order to bring him or them 
 to trial. If any commanding officer or officers shall willfully 
 neglect, or shall refuse, upon the application aforesaid, to de- 
 liver over such accused person or persons to the civil magis- 
 
344 APPENDIX. 
 
 trates, or to be aiding and assisting to the officers of justice in 
 apprehending such person or persons, the officer or officers so 
 offending shall be cashiered. 
 
 Akt. 34. If any officer shall think himself wronged by his 
 colonel, or the commanding officer of the regiment, and shall, 
 upon due application being made to him, be refused redress, he 
 may complain to the general commanding in the state or terri- 
 tory where such regiment shall be stationed, in order to obtain 
 justice ; who is hereby required to examine into said complaint, 
 and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained 
 of, and transmit, as soon as possible, to tie Department of War, 
 a true state of such complaint, with the proceedings had thereon. 
 
 Art. 35. If any inferior officer or soldier shall think himself 
 wronged by his captain, or other officer, he is to complain 
 thereof to the commanding officer of the regiment, who is 
 hereby required to summon a regimental court-martial, for the 
 doing justice to the complainant; from which regimental court- 
 martial either party may, if he thinks himself still aggrieved, 
 appeal to a general court-martial. But if, upon a second hear- 
 ing, the appeal shall appear vexatious and groundless, the per- 
 son so appealing shall be punished at the discretion of the said 
 court-martial. 
 
 Art. 36. Any commissioned officer, store-keeper, or commis- 
 sary, who shall be convicted at a general court-martial of hav- 
 ing sold, without a proper order for that purpose, embezzled, 
 misapplied, or wilfully, or through neglect, suffered any of the 
 provisions, forage, arms, clothing, ammunition, or other mili- 
 tary stores belonging to the United States, to be spoiled or 
 damaged, shall, at his own expense, make good the loss or 
 damage, and shall, moreover, forfeit all his pay, and be dis- 
 missed from the service. 
 
 Art. 3T. Any non-commissioned officer or soldier who shall 
 be convicted at a regimental court-martial of liaving sold, or 
 designedly, or through neglect, wasted the ammunition deliv- 
 ered out to him, to be employed in the service of the United 
 States, shall be punished at the discretion of such court. 
 
ARTICLES OF WAE. 345 
 
 Akt. 38. Every non-commissioned officer or soldier who 
 5] tall be convicted before a court-martial of having sold, lost, 
 or spoiled, through neglect, his horse, arms, clothes, or accou- 
 trements, shall undergo such weekly stoppages (not exceeding 
 the half of his pay), as such court-martial shall judge sufficient, 
 for repairing the loss or damage ; and shall sulfer conhnement, 
 or such other corporeal punishment as his crime shall deserve. 
 
 Art. 39. Every officer who shall be convicted before a court- 
 martial of having embezzled or misapplied any money with 
 which he may have been intrusted, for the payment of the men 
 under his command, or for enlisting men into the service, or 
 for other purposes, if a commissioned officer, shall be cashiered, 
 and compelled to refund the money; if a non-commissioned 
 officer, shall be reduced to the ranks, be put under stoppages 
 until the money be made good, and suffer such corporeal pun- 
 ishment as such court-martial shall direct. 
 
 Art. 40. Every captain of a troop or company is charged 
 with the arms, accoutrements, ammunition, clothing, or other 
 warlike stores belonging to the troop or company under his 
 command, which he is to be accountable for to his colonel in 
 case of their being lost, spoiled, or damaged, not by unavoid- 
 able accidents, or on actual service. 
 
 Art. 41. All non-commissioned officers and soldiers who 
 shall be found one mile from the camp without leave, in writ- 
 ing, from their commanding officer, shall suffer such punish- 
 ment as shall be infficted upon them by the sentence of a court- 
 martial. 
 
 Art. 42. Xo officer or soldier shall lie out of his quarters, 
 garrison, or camp without leave from his superior officer, upon 
 penalty of being punished according to the nature of his offence, 
 by the sentence of a court-martial. 
 
 Art. 43. Every non-commissioned officer and soldier shall 
 retire to his quarters or tent at the beating of the retreat ; in 
 default of which he shall be punished according to the natui-e 
 of his offence. 
 
 Art. 44. No officer, non-commissioned officer, or soldier 
 
3-46 APPENDIX. 
 
 shall fail in repairing, at the time fixed, to the place of parade, 
 of exercise, or other rendezvous appointed by his commanding 
 ofiacer, if not prevented by sickness or some other evident ne- 
 cessity, or shall go from the said place of rendezvous without 
 leave from his commanding officer, before he shall be regularly 
 dismissed or relieved, on the penalty of being punished, accord- 
 ing to the nature of his offence, by the sentence of a court-mar- 
 tial. 
 
 Art. 45. Any commissioned officer who shall be found 
 drunk on his guard, party, or other duty, shall be cashiered. 
 Any non-commissioned officer or soldier so offending shall suffer 
 such corporeal punishment as shall be inflicted by the sentence 
 of a court-martial. 
 
 Art. 46. Any sentinel who shall be found sleeping upon his 
 post, or shall leave it before he shall be regularly relieved, shall 
 suffer death, or such other punishment as shall be inflicted by 
 the sentence of a court-martial. 
 
 Art. 47. No soldier belonging to any regiment, troop, or 
 company shall hire another to do his duty for him, or be ex- 
 cused from duty but in cases of sickness, disability, or leave of 
 absence ; and every 6u.ch soldier found guilty of hiring his 
 duty, as also the party so hired to do another's duty, shall be 
 punished at the discretion of a regimental court-martial. 
 
 Art. 48. And every non-commissioned officer conniving at 
 such hiring of duty aforesaid, shall be reduced ; and every 
 commissioned officer knowing and allowing such ill practices 
 in the service, shall be punished by the judgment of a general 
 court-martial. 
 
 Art. 49. Any officer belonging to the service of the United 
 States, who, by discharging of fire-arms, drawing of swords, 
 beating of drums, or by any other means whatsoever, shall 
 occasion false alarms in camp, garrison, or quarters, shall suffer 
 death, or such other punishment as shall be ordered by the 
 sentence of a general court-martial. 
 
 Art. 50. Any officer or soldier who shall, without urgent 
 necessity, or without the leave of his superior officer, quit his 
 
ARTICLES OF WAR. 347 
 
 guard, platoon, or division, shall be pnnislied, according to the 
 nature of his offence, by the sentence of a court-martial. 
 
 Art. 51. No officer or soldier shall do violence to any person 
 who brings provisions or other necessaries to the camp, garri- 
 son, or quarters of the forces of the United States, employed in 
 any parts out of the said States, upon pain of death, or such 
 other punishment as a court-martial shall direct. 
 
 Art. 52. Any officer or soldier who shall misbehave himself '• 
 before the enemy, run away, or shamefully abandon any fort, 
 post, or guard which he or they may be commanded to defend, 
 or speak words inducing others to do the like, or shall cast 
 away hig arms and ammunition, or who shall quit his post or 
 colors to plunder and pillage, every such offender, being duly 
 convicted thereof, shall suffer death, or such other punishment 
 as shall be ordered by the sentence of a general court-martial. 
 
 Art. 53. Any person belonging to the armies of the United 
 States who shall make known the watchword to any person 
 who is not entitled to receive it according to the rules and dis- 
 cipline of war, or shall presume to give a parole or watchword 
 different from what he received, shall suffer death, or such other 
 punishment as shall be ordered by the sentence of a general 
 court-martial. 
 
 Art. 54. All officers and soldiers arc to behave themselves 
 orderly in quarters and on their march ; and whoever shall 
 commit any waste or spoil, either in walks of trees, parks, war- 
 rens, fish-ponds, houses, or gardens, corn-fields, enclosures of 
 meadows, or shall maliciously destroy any property whatsoever 
 belonging to the inhabitants of the United States, unless by 
 order of the then commander-in-chief of the armies of the said 
 States shall (besides such penalties as they are liable to by law), 
 be punished according to the nature and degree of the oflence, 
 by the judgment of a regimental or general court-martial. 
 
 Art. 55. "Whosoever, belonging to the armies of the United 
 States in foreign parts, shall force a safeguard, shall sufi'er 
 death.* 
 
 * Modified by act of February 13th, 1862, sec. 5. 
 
348 APPEKDIX. 
 
 Aet. 56. Whosoever shall relieve the enemy with money, vic- 
 tuals, or ammunition, or shall knowingly harbor or protect an 
 enemy, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as sliall be 
 ordered by the sentence of a court-martial. 
 
 Art. 57. Whosoever shall be convicted of holding corre- 
 spondence with, or giving intelligence to, the enemy, either 
 directly or indirectly, shall suffer death, or such other punish- 
 ment as shall be ordered by the sentence of a court-martial. 
 
 Art. 58. All public stores taken in the enemy's camp, towns, 
 forts, or magazines, whether of artillery, ammunition, clothing, 
 forage, or provisions, shall be secured for the service of the 
 United States ; for the neglect of which the commanding offi- 
 cer is to be answerable. 
 
 Art. 59. If any commander of any garrison, fortress, or post 
 shall be compelled, by the officers and soldiers under his com- 
 mand, to give up to the enemy, or to abandon it, the commis- 
 sioned officers, non-commissioned officers, or soldiers who shall 
 be convicted of having so offended, shall suffer death, or such 
 other punishment as shall be inflicted upon them by the sen- 
 tence of a court-martial. 
 
 Art. 60. All sutlers and retainers to the camp, and all per- 
 sons whatsoever, serving with the armies of tlie United States 
 in the field, though not enlisted soldiers, are to be subject to 
 orders, according to the rules and discipline of war. 
 
 Art. 61. Officers having brevets or commissions of a prior 
 date to those of the regiment in which they serve, may take 
 place in courts-raartial and on detachments, when composed of 
 different corps, according to the ranks given them in their 
 brevets or dates of their former commissions ; but in the regi- 
 ment, troop, or company to which such officers belong, they 
 shall do duty and take rank both in courts-martial and on de- 
 tachments which shall be composed of their own corps, accord- 
 ing to the commissions by which they are mustered in the said 
 corps. 
 
 Art. 62. If, upon marches, guards, or in quarters, different 
 corps of the army shall happen to join, or do duty together, 
 
ARTICLES OF WAE. 349 
 
 the oflScer highest in rank of the line of the army, marine corps, 
 or militia, by commission, there on duty or in quarters, shall 
 command the whole, and give orders for what is needful to the 
 service, unless otherwise specially directed by the President of 
 the United States, according to the nature of the case. 
 
 Akt. 03. The functions of the engineers being generally con- 
 fined to ^e most elevated branch of military science, they are 
 not to assume, nor are they subject to be ordered on any duty 
 beyond the line of their immediate profession, except by the 
 special order of the President of the United States ; but they 
 are to receive every mark of respect to which their rank in the 
 army may entitle them respectively, and are liable to be trans- 
 ferred, at the discretion of the President, from one corps to an- 
 other, regard being paid to rank. 
 
 Art. 64. General courts-martial may consist of any number 
 of commissioned otficers, from five to thirteen, inclusively ; but 
 they shall not consist of less than thirteen where that number 
 can be convened without manifest injury to the service. 
 
 Art. 65.* Any general officer commanding an army, or col- 
 onel commanding a separate department, may appoint general 
 courts-martial whenever necessary. But no sentence of a court- 
 martial shall be carried into execution iintil after the wliole 
 proceedings shall have been laid before the officer ordering the 
 same, or the officer commanding the troops for the time being ; 
 neither shall any sentence of a general court-martial, in time 
 of peace, extending to the loss of life, or the dismission of 
 a commissioned officer, or which sliall, either in time of peace 
 or war, respect a general officer, be carried into execution, until 
 after the whole proceedings shall have been transmitted to the 
 Secretary of War, to be laid before the President of the United 
 States for his confirmation or disapproval, and orders in the 
 case. All other sentences may be confirmed and executed by 
 the officer ordering the court to assemble, or the commanding 
 officer for the time being, as the case may be. 
 
 Art. 66. Every officer commanding a regiment or corps may 
 * Modified hy act of 29th May, 1830, and December 2itli, 18G1. 
 
350 appe:n^dix. 
 
 appoint, for his own regiment or corps, conrts-martial, to con- 
 sist of three commissioned officers, for the trial and pimisliment 
 of offences not capital, and decide upon their sentences. For 
 the same purpose, all officers commanding any of the garrisons, 
 forts, Ijarracks, or other places where the troops consist of dif- 
 ferent corps, may assemble courts-martial, to consist of three 
 commissioned officers, and decide npon their sentencqg, 
 
 Akt. 67. No garrison or regimental court-martial shall have 
 the power to try capital cases or commissioned officers; neither 
 shall they inflict a fine exceeding one month's pay, nor imprison 
 nor put to hard labor, any non-commissioned officer or soldier 
 for a longer time than one month. 
 
 Art. 68. "Whenever it may be found convenient and neces- 
 sary to the public service, the officers of the marines shall be 
 associated with the officers of the land forces, for the purpose 
 of holding courts-martial, and trying offenders belonging to 
 either ; and, in such cases, the orders of the senior officer of 
 either corps who may be present and duly authorized shall be 
 received and obeyed. 
 
 Art. 69. The judge advocate, or some person deputed by him, 
 or by the general, or officer commanding the army, detachment, 
 or garrison, shall prosecute in the name of the United States, 
 but shall so far consider himself as counsel for the prisoner, 
 after the said prisoner shall have made his plea, as to object to 
 any leading question to any of the witnesses, or any question 
 to the prisoner, the answer to which might tend to criminate 
 himself; and administer to each member of the court, before 
 they proceed upon any trial, the folloM'ing oath, which shall 
 also be taken by all members of the regimental and garrison 
 courts-martial : 
 
 " You, A. 1>., do swear that you will well and truly try and 
 determine, according to evidence, the matter now before you, 
 between the United States of America and the prisoner to be 
 tried, and that you will duly administer justice, according to 
 the provisions of 'An Act establishing Kules and Articles for 
 the government of the armies of the United States,' without 
 
ARTICLES OF WAR. 351 
 
 partiality, favor, or affection ; and if any doubt should arise, 
 not explained by said articles, according to your conscience, 
 the best of your understanding, and the custom of war in like 
 cases ; and you do further swear, that you will not divulge the 
 sentence of the court until it shall be published by the proper 
 authority ; neither will you disclose or discover the vote or 
 opinion of any ]jcirticular member of the court-martial, unless 
 required to give evidence thereof, as a witness, by a court of 
 justice, in a due course of law. So help you God." 
 
 And as soon as the said oath shall have been administered to 
 the respective members, the president of the court shall admin- 
 ister to the judge-advocate, or person officiating as such, an 
 oath in the following words : 
 
 " You, A. B., do swear, that you will not disclose or discover 
 the vote or opinion of any particular member of the court-mar- 
 tial, unless required to give evidence thereof, as a witness, by a 
 court of justice, in due course of law ; nor divulge the sentence 
 of the court to any but the proper authority, until it shall be 
 duly disclosed by the same. So help you God." 
 
 Art. 70. "Wlien a prisoner, arraigned before a general court- 
 martial, shall, from obstinacy and deliberate design, stand 
 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. 71. When a member shall be challenged by a prisoner, 
 he must state his cause of challenge, of which the court shall, 
 after due deliberation, determine the relevancy or validity, and 
 decide accordingly ; and no challenge to more than one mem- 
 ber at a time shall be received by the court. 
 
 Art. 72. All the members of a court-martial are to behave 
 with decency and calmness ; and in giving their votes are to 
 begin with the youngest in commission. 
 
 Art. 73. All persons who give evidence before a court-mar- 
 tial are to be examined on oath or affirmation, in the following 
 form : 
 
 " You swear, or affirm (as the case mav be"), the evidence 
 
352 APPENDIX. 
 
 yon sliall give in tlie cause now in hearing sliall be tlie triitli, 
 tlie whole truth, and notliing but the truth. So help you 
 God." 
 
 Art. T4-. On the trials 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 ac- 
 cused are present at the taking the same, or are duly notified 
 thereof. 
 
 Art. T5. 'No officer shall be tried but by a general court- 
 martial, nor by officers of an inferior rank, if it can be avoided. 
 Nor shall any proceedings of trials be carried on, excepting 
 between the hours of eight in the morning and. three in the 
 afternoon, excepting in cases which, in the opinion of the 
 officer appointing the court-martial, require immediate ex- 
 ample. 
 
 Art. 76. No person whatsoever shall use any menacing 
 words, signs, or gestures, in presence of a court-martial, or 
 shall cause any disorder or riot, or disturb their proceedings, 
 on the penalty of being punished at the discretion of the said 
 court-martial. 
 
 Art. YT. "Whenever any officer shall be charged with a 
 crime, he shall be arrested and confined in his barracks, quar- 
 ters, or tent, and deprived of his sword by the commanding offi- 
 cer. And any officer who shall leave his confinement before 
 he shall be set at liberty by his conmianding officer, or by a 
 superior officer, shall be cashiered. 
 
 Art. Y8. Non-commissioned officers and soldiers, charged 
 with crimes, shall be confined until tried by a court-martial, or 
 released by proper authority. 
 
 Art. 79. No officer or soldier who shall be put in arrest shall 
 continue in confinement more than eight days, or until such 
 time as a court-martial can be assembled. 
 
 Art. 80. No officer commanding a guard, or provost-mar- 
 shal, shall refuse to receive or keep any prisoner committed to 
 his charjre bv an officer belonccinc: to the forces of the United 
 
ARTICLES OF WAR. 353 
 
 States ; provided the officer coininitting shall, at the same thne, 
 deliver an account in writing, signed by himself, of the crime 
 with which the said prisoner is charged. 
 
 Akt. 81. No officer commanding a guard, or provost-mar- 
 shal, shall presume to release any person committed to his 
 charge without proper authority for so doing, nor shall he suf- 
 fer any person to escape, on the penalty of being ])unished for 
 it by the sentence of a court-martial. 
 
 Akt. 82. Every officer or provost-marshal, to whose charge 
 prisoners shall be committed, shall, within twenty-four hours 
 after such commitment, or as soon as he shall be relieved from 
 his guard, make report in writing, to the commanding officer, 
 of their names, their crimes, and the names of the'* officers who 
 committed them, on the penalty of being punished for disobe- 
 dience or neglect, at the discretion of a court-martial. 
 
 Akt. 83. Any commissioned officer convicted before a gen- 
 eral court-martial of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gen- 
 tleman, shall be dismissed the service. 
 
 Art. 8-i. In cases where a court-martial ma}' think it proper 
 to sentence a commissioned officer to be suspended from com- 
 mand, they shall have power also to suspend his pay and emol- 
 uments for the same time, according to the nature and heinous- 
 ness of the offence. 
 
 Akt. 85. In all cases where a connnissioncd officer is casli- 
 iered for cowardice or fraud, it shall be added in the sentence, 
 that the crime, name, and place uf abode, and ])uni>limeiit of 
 the delinquent, be published in the news])a])crs in and alxjut 
 the camp, and of the particular state from wliicli the oflcnder 
 came, or where he usually resides; after which it sliall l)e 
 deemed scandalous for an officer to associate with him. 
 
 Akt. 86. Tlie commanding officer of any post or detachment, 
 in which there shall not be a number of officers adequate to 
 form a general court-martial, sliall, in cases which require the 
 cognizance of such a court, report to the commanding officer of 
 the department, who shall order a court to be assembled at the 
 nearest post or department, and the partv accused, with neces- 
 23 
 
354 APPENDIX. 
 
 sary witnesses, to be transported to the })lace wliere the said 
 court shall be assembled. 
 
 Art. 87.* No person shall be sentenced to suffer death but 
 by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of a general 
 court-martial, nor except in the cases herein expressly men- 
 tioned ; no7' shall more than ffty lashes he inflicted on any 
 offender, at the discretion of a court-inartial / and no officer, 
 non-commissioned officer, soldier, or follower of the army, shall 
 be tried a second time for the same offence. 
 
 Art. 88. No person shall be liable to be tried and punished 
 by a general court-martial for any offence which shall apjiear 
 to have been committed more than two years before the issuing 
 of the order for such trial, unless the person, by reason of hav- 
 ing absented himself, or some other manifest impediment, shall 
 not have been amenable to justice within that period. 
 
 Art. 89. Every officer authorized to order a general court- 
 martial shall have power to pardon or mitigate any punishment 
 ordered by such court, except the sentence of death, or of cash- 
 iering an officer; which, in the cases where he has authority 
 (by article 05), to carry them into execution, he may suspend, 
 until the pleasure of the President of the United States can be 
 known; which suspension, together with copies of the jn-oceed- 
 ings of the court-martial, the said officer shall immediately 
 transmit to the President for his determination. And the 
 colonel or commanding officer of the regiment or garrison 
 where any regimental or garrison court-martial shall be held, 
 may pardon or mitigate any punishment ordered by such court 
 to be inflicted. 
 
 xVrt. 00. Every judge advocate, or person officiating as such, 
 at any general court-martial, shall transmit, with as much ex- 
 pedition as the opportunity of time and distance of place can 
 admit, the original proceedings and sentence of such court- 
 
 * So much of these rules and articles as authorizes the infliclion of corporeal 
 punishment by stripes or lashes, was speciaUy repealed by act of IGth May, 1812. 
 By act of 2d March, 1 833, the repealing act was repealed, so far as it applied to the 
 crime of desertion, which, of course, revived the punishment by lashes for that 
 offence. Repealed by act of August 5th, 1S61, sec. J. 
 
AETICLES OF WAE. 355 
 
 niai'tial to the secretary of war; wliich said original proceed- 
 ings and sentence shall be carefnllv kept and preserved in the 
 office of said secretary, to the end that the persons entitled 
 thereto may be enabled, upon application to the said office, to 
 obtain copies thereof. 
 
 The party tried by any general court-martial shall, npoii de- 
 mand thereof, made l)y himself, or by any person or persons in 
 his behalf, be entitled to a copy of the sentence and j^roceed- 
 inffs of such conrt-martial. 
 
 Akt. 91. In cases where the general, or commanding officer 
 may order a conrt of inquiry to examine into the nature of any 
 transaction, accusation, or imputation against any officer or 
 soldier, the said court shall consist of one or more officers, not 
 exceeding three, and a judge advocate, or other suitable ])erson, 
 as a recorder, to reduce the ]>roceedings and evidence to writ- 
 ing ; all of whom shall be sworn to the faithful performance of 
 their duty. This court shall have the same power to summon 
 witnesses as a court-martial, and to examine them on oath. 
 But they shall not give their opinion on the merits of the case, 
 excepting they shall be thereto specially required. The parties 
 accused shall also be permitted to cross-examine and interrogate 
 the witnesses, so as to investigate fully the circumstances in the 
 question. 
 
 Art. 92. Tlie proceedings of a court of inquiry must be 
 authenticated by the signature of the recorder and the presi- 
 dent, and delivered to the commanding officer, and the said 
 proceedings may be admitted as evidence by a court-martial, 
 in cases not capital, or extending to the dismission of an officer, 
 provided that the circumstances are such that oral testimony 
 cannot be ol^tained. But as courts of inquiry may be pervert- 
 ed to dishonorable purposes, and may be considered as engines 
 of destruction to military merit, in the hands of weak and envi- 
 ous commandants, they are hereby ]in.liibite(l, uiilt^'ss directed by 
 the President of the United States, or demanded l)y the accused. 
 
 Akt. 93. Tlie judge advocate or recorder shall administer to 
 the members the following oath : 
 
356 APPEXDIX. 
 
 " Yon sliall well and triilv examine and inqnire, according 
 to Yonr evidence, into the matter now before jon, without par- 
 tiality, favor, affection, prejudice, or hope of reward. So help 
 you God." 
 
 After which the president shall administer to the judge ad- 
 vocate or recorder the following oath : 
 
 '• You, A. B., do swear that you will, according to your best 
 abilities, accurately and impartially record the proceedings of 
 the court, and the evidence to be given in the case in hearing. 
 So help you God." 
 
 The witnesses shall take the same oath as witnesses sworn 
 before a court-martial. 
 
 Art. 94. When any commissioned officer shall die or be 
 killed in the service of the United States, the major of the regi- 
 ment, or the officer doing the major's duty in his absence, or 
 in any post or garrison, the second officer in command, or the 
 assistant military agent, shall immediately secure all his effects 
 or equipage, then in camp or quarters, and shall make an in- 
 ventory thereof, and forthwith transmit the same to the office 
 of the Department of War, to the end that his executors or ad- 
 ministrators may receive the same. 
 
 Akt. 95. When any non-commissioned officer or soldier shall 
 die, or be killed in the service of the United States, the then 
 commanding officer of the troop or company shall, in the J3res- 
 ence of two other commissioned officers, take an account of 
 what effects he died possessed of, above his arms and accoutre- 
 ments, and transmit the same to the office of the Department 
 of War, which said effects are to be accounted for, and paid to 
 the representatives of such deceased non-commissioned officer 
 or soldier. And in case any of the officers, so authorized to 
 take care of the effects of deceased officers and soldiers, should, 
 before they have accounted to their representatives for the 
 same, have occasion to leave the regiment or post, by prefer- 
 ment or otherwise, they shall, before they be permitted to quit 
 the same, deposit in the hands of the commanding officer, or 
 of the assistant military agent, all the effects of such deceased 
 
 i 
 
ARTICLES OF WAR. 357 
 
 non-commissioned officers and soldiers, in order that tlie same 
 may be secured for, and paid to, tlieir respective representatives. 
 
 Art. 96. All officers, conductors, gunners, matrosses, drivers, 
 or other persons whatsoever, receiving pay or hire in the serv- 
 ice of the artillery, or corps of engineers of the United States, 
 shall be governed by the aforesaid rules and articles, and 
 shall be subject to be tried by courts-martial, in like manner 
 with the officers and soldiers of the other troops in the service 
 of the United States. 
 
 Art. 97. The officers and soldiers of any troops, whether 
 militia or others, being mustered and in pay of the United 
 States, shall, at all times and in all places, when joined, or act- 
 ing in conjunction with tlie regular forces of the United States, 
 be governed by these rules and articles of war, and- shall be 
 subject to be tried by courts-martial, in like manner with the 
 officers and soldiers in the regular forces ; save only that such 
 courts-martial shall be composed entirely of militia officers. 
 
 Art. 98. All officers serving by commission from the author- 
 ity of any particular state, shall, on all detachments, courts- 
 martial, or other duty, wherein they may be employed in con- 
 junction with the regular forces of the United States, take rank 
 next after all officers of the like grade in said regular forces, 
 notwithstanding the commissions of such militia or state offi- 
 cers may be elder than the commissions of the officers of the 
 regular forces of the United States. 
 
 Art. 99. All crimes not capital, and all disorders and neg- 
 lects which officers and soldiers may be guilty of, to the pre- 
 judice of good order and military discipline, though not men- 
 tioned in the foregoing articles of war, are to be taken cogni- 
 zance of by a general or regimental court-martial, according to 
 the nature and degree of the offi3nce, and be punished at their 
 discretion. 
 
 Art. 100. The President of the United States shall have 
 power to prescribe the uniform of the army. 
 
 Art. 101. Tlie foregoing articles are to be read and published, 
 once in every six mouths, to every garrison, regiment, troop, 
 
358 APPEXDIX. 
 
 or company, mustered, or to be mustered, iu the service of the 
 United States, and are to be duly observed and obeyed by all 
 officers and soldiers who are, or shall be, in said service. 
 
 Sec. 2. And he it further enacted^ Tliat in time of war, all 
 persons not citizens of, or owing allegiance to, the United States 
 of America, who shall be found lurking as spies in or about 
 the fortifications or encampments of, the armies of the United 
 States, or any of them, shall suffer death, according to the law 
 and usage of nations, by sentence of a general court-martial,* 
 
 Sec. 3. And he it further enacted^ That the rules and regula- 
 tions by which the armies of the United States have heretofore 
 been goyerned, and the resolves of Congress tbereunto annexed, 
 and respecting the same, shall henceforth be void and of no 
 effect, except so far as may relate to any transactions under 
 them prior to the promulgation of this act, at the several posts 
 and garrisons respectively, occupied by any part of the army of 
 the United States. [Appkoved, April 10, ISOC] 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM ACTS OF COXGRESS. 
 
 1. " If any non-commissioned officer, musician, or private 
 shall desert the service of the United States, he shall, in addition 
 to the penalties mentioned in the rules and articles of war, be 
 liable to serve for and during such a period as shall, with the 
 time he may have served previous to his desertion, amount to 
 the full term of his enlistment ; and such soldier shall and may 
 be tried by a court-martial, and punished, although the term 
 of his enlistment may have elapsed previous to his being appre- 
 hended or tried."— ^6'^ KSth March, 1802, sec. 18. 
 
 2. " No officer or soldier in the army of the United States 
 shall be subject to the punishment of death for desertion in 
 time of peace." — Act 29th May, 1830. 
 
 3. "Wlienever a general officer connnanding an army, or a 
 
 * Modified by act of February l.'Uli, 1862, section 4th. 
 
EXTRACTS FROM ACTS OF CONGRESS. 359 
 
 colonel coiniuanding a separate departinent, shall bo the aeeuser 
 or prosecutor of any officer in the army of the United States 
 under his command, the general court-martial for the trial of 
 such officer shall be appointed by the President of the United 
 States." 
 
 "The proceedings and sentence of the said court shall be 
 sent directly to the secretary of war, to be by him laid betbre 
 the President for his confirmation or approval, or orders in 
 the case." 
 
 " So nnich of the sixty-fifth arti(;le of the first section of 'An 
 act for establishing rules and articles for the government of the 
 armies of the United States,' passed on the tenth of April, 
 eighteen hundred and six, as is repugnant hereto, shall be, and 
 the same is hereby repealed." — Act 29th May, 1S30, sec. 1, 2, 
 and 3. 
 
 4. " That all officers and other persons, charged by this act, or 
 any other act, with the safe-keeping, transfer, and disbursement 
 of the pnl)lic moneys, other than those connected with the post- 
 office department, are hereby required to keep an accurate entry 
 of each sum received, and of each payment or transfer ; and 
 that if any one of the said officers, or of those connected with 
 the post-office department, shall convert to his own use, in any 
 way whatever, or shall use, by way of investment in any kind 
 of property or merchandise, or shall loan, with or without in- 
 terest, or shall deposit in any bank, or shall exchange for other 
 funds, except as allowed by this act, any portion of the public 
 moneys intrusted to him for safe-keeping, disbursement, trans- 
 fer, or for any other purpose, eveiy such act shall be deemed 
 aiid adjudged to be an embezzlement of so much of the said 
 moneys as shall be thus taken, converted, invested, used, loaned, 
 deposited, or exchanged, which is hereby declared to be a fel- 
 ony ; and any failure to pay over or to produce the public moneys 
 intrusted to such person, shall be held and taken to be ijrima 
 facie evidence of such embezzlement ; and if any officer charged 
 with the disbursements of public moneys shall accept, or re- 
 ceive, or transmit to the treasury department to be allowed in 
 
360 APPENDIX. 
 
 liis favor, any receipt or vouelier from a creditor of the United 
 States, withont having paid to said creditor, in such funds as 
 the said officer may liave received for disbursement, or such 
 other funds as he may be authorized by this act to take in ex- 
 change, the full amount specified in such receijjt or voucher, 
 every such act shall be deemed to be a conversion by such officer 
 to his own use of the amount specified in such receipt or voucher ; 
 and any officer or agent of the United States, and all })ersons 
 advising or participating in such act, being convicted thereof, 
 before any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction, 
 shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than 
 six months, nor more than ten years, and to a fine equal to the 
 amount of the money embezzled. And, upon the trial of any 
 indictment against any person for embezzling public money un- 
 der the provisions of this act, it shall be sufficient evidence, for 
 the purpose of showing a balance against such person, to pro- 
 duce a transcript from the books and proceedings of the treas- 
 ury, as required in civil cases, under the provision of the act, 
 entitled, ' An Act to i:)rovide more effectually for the Settlement 
 of Accounts between the United States and Receivers of Public 
 Money,' approved March third, one thousand seven hundred 
 and ninety-seven ; and the provisions of this act shall be so con- 
 strued as to apply to all persons charged with the safe-keeping, 
 transfer, or disbursement, of the public money, whether such 
 persons be indicted as receivers or depositaries of the same ; 
 and the refusal of such jierson, whether in ov out of office, to 
 pa}' any draft, order, or warrant, which may be drawn upon 
 him by the proper officer of the treasury department, for any 
 public money in his hands belonging to the United States, no 
 nuxtter in what capacity the same may have been received or 
 may be held, or to transfer or disburse any such money promptly, 
 upon the legal requirement of any authorized officer of the 
 United States, shall be deemed and taken, upon the trial of any 
 indictment against such person for embezzlement, as /)/'/y;i« 
 facie evidence of such embezzlement." — Act, August 6th, 1846, 
 sec 16. 
 
 i 
 
EXTRACTS FROM ACTS OF CONGRESS. 301 
 
 5. " That every officer, iioii-conimissioncd officer, or private 
 e< ' tlie militia, who shall fail to ohey the orders of the President 
 of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall 
 forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than 
 one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court- 
 martial ; and such officer shall be liable to be cashiered by a sen- 
 tence of court-martial, and be incapacitated from holding- a com- 
 mission in the militia, for a term not exceeding twelve months, 
 at the discretion of the court ; and such non-commissioned of- 
 ficer and private shall be liable to imprisonment b}^ a like sen- 
 tence, on failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them 
 for one calendar montli, for every twenty-five dollars of such 
 fine." 
 
 "That courts-martial for the trial of militia shall be com- 
 posed of militia officers only." 
 
 " That all fines to be assessed as aforesaid shall be certified 
 by the presiding officer of the court-martial, and shall be col- 
 lected and paid over according to the provisions and in the man- 
 ner prescribed by the seventh and eighth sections of the act of 
 February twenty-eight, seventeen hundred and ninety-five, to 
 which this is an amendment." — Act, July %ith, 1861, sec. 4-, 5, 
 and 6. 
 
 6, " That any commissioned officer of the army, or of the 
 marine corps, who shall have served as such for forty consecu- 
 tive years, may, upon his application to the President of the 
 United States, be placed upon the list of retired officers, with 
 the pay and emoluments allowed by this act." 
 
 "Tliat, if any commissioned officer of the army, or of the 
 marine corps, shall have become, or shall hereafter become, in- 
 capable of performing the duties of his office, he shall be placed 
 upon the retired list and withdrawn from active service and com- 
 mand, and from the line of promotion, with the following pay 
 and emoluments, * * * . ^nd the next officer in 
 rank shall be promoted to the place of the retired officer, ac- 
 cording to the established rules of the service. '" * * 
 That there shall not be on the retired list at anv one time more 
 
362 APPENDIX. 
 
 than seven per centum of the wliole number of officers of t\w, 
 army as fixed by law." 
 
 " That, in order to carry out tlie provisions of this act, the 
 secretary of war, or secretary of the navy, as the case may 
 be, under the direction and approval of the President of the 
 United States, shall, from time to time, as occasion may require, 
 assemble a board of not more than nine nor less than five com- 
 missioned officers, two-fifths of whom shall be of the medical 
 staff ; the board, except those taken from the medical staff, to 
 be composed, as far as may be, of his seniors in rank, to deter- 
 mine the facts as to the nature and occasion of the disability 
 of such officers as appear disabled to perform such military 
 service, such board being hereby invested w^itli the powers of a 
 court of inquiry and court-martial, and their decision shall be 
 subject to like revision as that of such courts by the President 
 of the United States. Tlie board, whenever it finds an officer 
 incapacitated for active service, will report whether, in its judg- 
 ment, the said incapacity result from long and faithful service, 
 from wounds or injury received in the line of duty, from sick- 
 ness or exposure therein, or from any other incident of service. 
 If so, and the President approve such judgment, the disabled 
 officer shall thereupon be placed upon the list of retired offi- 
 cers, according to the provisions of this act. If otherwise, and 
 if the President concur in opinion with the board, the officer 
 shall be retired as above, either with his pay proper alone or 
 with his service rations alone, at the discretion of the President, 
 or he shall be wholly retired from the service, with one year's 
 pay and allowances ; and in this last case his name shall be 
 thenceforward omitted from the army register, or navy register, 
 as the case may be : Provided always^ That the members of 
 the board shall in every case be sworn to an honest and imi)ar- 
 tial discharge of tlieir duties, and that no officer of the array 
 shall be retired either partially or wholly from the service 
 without having had a fair and full hearing before the board, if, 
 upon due summons, he shall demand it." 
 
 "That the officers partially retired shall be entitled to wear the 
 
EXTEACTS FROM ACTS OF CONGRESS. 363 
 
 uiiiforin of their respective grades, shall continue to be borne 
 upon tlu; army register or navy register, as the case may be, 
 and shall be subject to the rules and articles of war, and to 
 trial by general court-martial for any breach of the said articles." 
 —Act, August 3d, 1861, sec. 15, 16, 17, and 18. 
 
 7. "That any commissioned officer of the army, navy, or 
 marine corps, who, having tendered his resignation, shall, prior 
 to due notice of the acceptance of the same by the proper 
 authority, and, without leave, quit his post or proper duties 
 with the intent to remain permanently absent therefrom, shall 
 be registered as a deserter, and i^unished as such." 
 
 " That flogging as a punishment in the army is hereby abol- 
 ished." — Act, August 5t/i, 1861, sec. 2 and 3. 
 
 8. "That, in time of war the commander of a division or 
 separate brigade may appoint general courts-martial, and con- 
 firm, execute, pardon, and mitigate their sentences, as allowed 
 and restrained in the sixty -fifth and eighty-ninth articles of war 
 to commanders of armies and departments : Provided, That 
 sentences of such courts, extending to loss of life, or dismission 
 of a commissioned officer, shall require the confirmation of the 
 general commanding the army in the field to which the division 
 or brigade belongs : And provided further, That when the di- 
 vision or brigade commander shall be the accuser or prosecutor, 
 the court shall be appointed by the next higher commander." — 
 Act, Becemher 2ith, 1861. 
 
 9. " That the fifth section of the act of twelfth June, eighteen 
 hundred and fifty-eight, giving sutlers a lien u})()n the soldiers' 
 pay, be, and the same is hereby, re])ealed : and all regulations 
 giving sutlers rights and privileges beytjnd the Hules and xVrti- 
 cles of War be, and the same are hereby, abrogated." — Act, 
 December 2^th, 1861, sec. 3. * 
 
 10. "That the second section of the act of the tenth of April, 
 eighteen hundred and six, shall be, and the same is hereby, so 
 amended as to read as follows : 
 
 "Sec. 2. Aiid be it further enacted,H\\i\i, in time of war or 
 rebellion against the supreme authority of the United States, 
 
364 APPEKDIX. 
 
 all persons wlio shall be found Inrking as spies, or acting as such, 
 in or about the fortifications, encampments, posts, quarters, or 
 head-quarters of the armies of the United States, or any of them, 
 within any part of the United States which has been or may be 
 declared to be in a state of insurrection, by proclamation of the 
 President of the United States, shall suffer death by sentence 
 of a general court-martial." 
 
 " That the fifty -fifth article of the first section of act of tenth 
 April, eighteen hundred and six, chapter twenty, be, and the 
 same is hereby, so amended as to read as follows : 
 
 '■'■Article ffty-five. "Whoever, belonging to the armies of the 
 United States in foreign parts, or at any place within the 
 United States, or their Territories, during rebellion against the 
 supreme authority of the United States, shall force a safeguard, 
 shall suffer death." — Act, February 13^A, 1862, sec. 4 and 5. 
 
 11. "All oflicers or persons in the military or naval service 
 of the United States are prohibited from employing any of the 
 forces under their respective commands for the purpose of re- 
 turning fugitives from service or labor, who may have escaped 
 from any persons to whom such service or labor is claimed to 
 be diie, and any ofiicer who shall be found guilty by a court- 
 martial of violating this article shall be dismissed from the 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abatement, plea in, may bo made by a 
 prisoner, 107. 
 
 Absence of members from a court-mar- 
 tial, 8-1 ; of tlie judge advocate, 86. 
 
 Accomplices, evidence of, has always 
 been admitted, 242 ; testify under an 
 implied promise of pardon. 242 ; in 
 what mannei* and for what purpose 
 admitteil to testify, 243 ; testimony of, 
 ought to receive confirmation, 244 ; 
 when admitted to give evidence, must 
 make a full confession, 313. 
 
 Accusations, frivolous and vexatious, 134. 
 
 Accuser, may remain in court under cer- 
 tain circumstances, GG; a competent 
 witness, 235. 
 
 Acquittal, a former, a, valid plea in bar of 
 trial, 97 ; what constitutes, 98 ; deter- 
 mined by a majority of votes, 128; fol- 
 lows where votes are equally divided, 
 129; manner in which expressed, 133. 
 
 Actions, injurious, malice a presumption 
 of law from, 282. 
 
 Acts of Congress, extracts from, 358. 
 
 Address of prisoner in defence, IIG , may 
 be read by his counsel, 117. 
 
 Adjournment of courts-martial, 82, 84. 
 
 Admissibility of evidence, court must 
 decide on, 225. 
 
 Adverse party, when instruments arc in 
 possession of, 275; notice to, to pro- 
 duce instruments, 27G, 277. 
 
 Adviser of the court, the judge advocate 
 is, 198. 
 
 AfiBrmative, test as to whicli partv is in 
 the, 292. 
 
 Aggregate opinion of a court-martial may 
 be claimed, G6. 
 
 Alias, a prisoner may be tried under an, 5G. 
 
 Alibi, when a prisoner may prove an, 300. 
 
 Amiais curia in courts-martial, G5. 
 
 Answer, in what cases a witness may 
 refuse, 310-314. 
 
 Appeal, right of, given to all officers and 
 soldiers, 170. 17G. 
 
 Appeal from a regimental to a general 
 
 court-martial, 159, 177; order of pro- 
 ceedings on, 178; when vexatious and 
 groundless, 178. 
 Appointment of a judge advocate, 1 92. 
 Armies, persons serving with, subject to 
 
 the articles of war, 29. 
 Arraignment of a prisoner, form of, 94. 
 Arraj', challenges to the, 68. 
 Arrest and confinement, 46-51. 
 Arrest, breach of, cashiering the penalty 
 for, 47 ; officers may be ordered in, by 
 inferiors in certain cases, 48, 49 ; a 
 former, not a valid plea in bar of trial, 
 100; parties before courts of inquiry 
 not in, 182 ; parties before retiring 
 boards not in, 189. 
 Article of war relating to 
 
 Absence without leave, 341, art. 21; 
 
 345, arts. 41, 42. 
 Allegiance, oath of, 338. art. 10. 
 Ammunition, wasting, 344, art. 37. 
 Arrest, 352, arts. 77-79. 
 Attending divine service, 336, art. 2. 
 Certificates of absence of officers and 
 soldiers, 339, art. 13; officers .sign- 
 ing false, 339, art. 14. 
 Challenges, 351, art. 71. 
 Challenge to fight a duel, sending, 
 341, arts. 25, 26 ; upbraiding for 
 refusing, 342, art. 28. 
 Chaplains, absence of, 337, art. 4. 
 Citizens, ofTeuces against, 343, art 33. 
 Compelling a commander to surren- 
 der, 348, art 59. 
 Conduct imbecoming an officer and 
 
 a gentleman, 353, art. 83. 
 Confinement of offenders, 352, 353, 
 
 arts. 77-82. 
 Correspondence with the enemy, 348, 
 
 art. 57. 
 Courts-martial, appointment of, 349. 
 
 arts. 65, 66; 353, art. 26. 
 Courts of inquiry, 355, 356, arts. 91- 
 
 93. 
 Cowardice, officers cashiered for, 353, 
 art. 85. 
 
366 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Article of war relatinpr to 
 
 Crimes and ofl'euces not named in 
 tiie articles of war, 857, art. 99. 
 
 Death penalty, 354, art. 87. 
 
 Deposition of witnesses not in the 
 army, 352, art. 74. 
 
 Desertion, 340, art. 20 ; advising or 
 persuading to, 341, art. 23. 
 
 Discharge of non-commissioned offi- 
 cers and soldiers, 338, art. 11. 
 
 Disobedience of superior officers, 
 338, art. 9. 
 
 Disorderly conduct in presence of 
 courts-martial, 352, art. 76. 
 
 Disrespect of constituted authorities, 
 337, art. 5 ; of commanding offi- 
 cers, 337, art. 6. 
 
 Drunkenness on duty, 346, art. 45. 
 
 Effects of deceased otficers and sol- 
 diers. 356, arts. 94, 95. 
 
 Embezzlement, 345, art. 39. 
 
 Engineers, 349, art. 63. 
 
 False alarms, 346, art. 49. 
 
 False certificates of absence, 339, 
 art. 14. 
 
 False muster, 339, art. 15 ; 340, art. 
 17. 
 
 False returns. 340. art. 18. 
 
 Forcing a safeguard, 347, art. 55. 
 
 Fraud, officers cashiered for, 353, 
 art. 85. 
 
 Furloughs, 339, art. 12. 
 
 Garrison court-martial, appointment 
 of, 350, art. 06; jurisdiction of, 
 
 350, art. 67. 
 
 General courts-martial, number of 
 members of 349, art 64; appoint- 
 ment and sentence of, 349, art. 6.'). 
 
 Gestures, reproachful or provoking, 
 341, art. 24. ♦ 
 
 Hiring duty, 346, arts. 47, 48. 
 
 Judge advocate, duties of, 350, art. 
 69. 
 
 Jurisdiction of courts-martial, as to 
 time, 354, art. 88; as to persons, 
 357, arts.' 96, 97. 
 
 Lashe.s, punishment by, 354, art. 87. 
 
 Marines, officers of, in courts-mar- 
 tial, 350, art. 68. 
 
 Military stores, spoiling or damag- 
 ing, 344, art. 36. 
 
 Mihtia, 357, arts. 97, 98. 
 
 Muster-rolls, 339, 340, arts. 13-17. 
 
 Mutiny or sedition, exciting, 337, 
 art. 7 ; not aiding to suppress, 337, 
 art. 8. 
 
 Oath administered to members of 
 regimental and garrison courts- 1 
 martial, 350, art. 69 ; to witnesses, 
 
 351, art. 73; to members of courts 1 
 of inquiry, 356, art. 93 ; to judge , 
 
 Article of war relating to 
 
 advocates, 356, art. 93; 371, art. 
 
 69. 
 Oath of allegiance, 338, art. 10. 
 Order, preservation of 343, art. 32. 
 Orderly conduct in quarters and on 
 
 march, 347, art. 54. 
 Parade, 345, art. 44. 
 Pardoning power, 354, art. 89. 
 Parole or watchword, 347, art. 53. 
 Prisoners, confinement of, 352, 353, 
 
 arts. 77-82. 
 Proceedings of courts-martial, 354, 
 
 art. 90. 
 Profane swearing, 336, art. 3. 
 Publication of articles of war, 357, 
 
 art. 101. 
 Quelling quarrels, frays, and disor- 
 ders, 342, art. 27. 
 Quitting guard, platoon, or division, 
 
 346, art. 50 ; 347, art. 52. 
 Rank of officers, 348, arts. 61, 62. 
 Re-enlisting without discharge, 341 , 
 
 art. 22. 
 Regimental court-martial, appoint- 
 ment of, 349, art. 06 ; jurisdiction 
 
 of, 350, art. 67. 
 Relieving the enemy, 348, art. 56. 
 Retiring to quarters, 345, art. 43. 
 ■ Returns, 340, arts. 18, 19. 
 Running away, 347, art. 52. 
 SeUing, losing, or spoiling horse, 
 
 arms, clothes, &c., 345, art. 38. 
 Sentence of death, 354, art. 87. 
 Sentinel sleeping on his post, 346, 
 
 art. 46. 
 Speeches, reproachful or provoking, 
 
 341, art. 24. 
 Spies, 358, sec. 2. 
 Standing mute before a general 
 
 coui't-martial, 351, art. 70. 
 Stores, captured, 348, art. 58. 
 Stores, warlike, accountabihty of 
 
 officers for, 345, art. 40. 
 Strikinga superior officer, 337, art. 9. 
 Subscribing articles of war, 336, 
 
 art. 1. 
 Suspension of officers from command, 
 
 353, art. 84. 
 Sutlers, 342, arts. 20-31; 348, art. 
 
 60. 
 Trial of officers, 352, art. 75. 
 Uniform of the ami}', 357, art. 100. 
 Violence to persons bringing provis- 
 ions, 347. art. 51. 
 Toting in court-martial, 351, art. 72. 
 "Watchword or parole, 347, art. 53. 
 Wrongs, 344, arts. 34, 35. 
 Articles of war, when adopted by Con- 
 gress. 8; who are subject to, 28. 29; 
 punishments specified by, for various 
 
ESTDEX. 
 
 367 
 
 offences, 38 ; remarks on, 205-223 ; 
 forms of charges and specitications 
 under, 331-333. 
 
 Artiliee, confessions obtained by, admis- 
 sible in evidence, 261. 
 
 Assembly of general courts-martial, G7. 
 
 Atheists, not competent -witnesses, 231. 
 
 Attendance, compulsory, of witnesses, 
 111. 
 
 Attendance of members of courts-martial 
 how certified, 202. 
 
 Attorney, must not disclose confidential 
 comnxunications of his client, 2-15. 
 
 Autrefois acquit and autrefois convict, 
 good pleas in bar of trial, 97 ; recent 
 decisions in relation to, 98-103. 
 
 Averments, descriptive, proof of, 295. 
 
 Averments, divisible, 29-i. 
 
 Barnsman, William, case of 155; opin- 
 ion of Attorney-General Wirt in rela- 
 tion to case of, 155. 
 
 Bar of trial, pleas in, 9G-10S. 
 
 Belief in the existence of a God necessa- 
 ry in a witness, 231. 
 
 Belief of \\ntnesses as to identity of hand- 
 writing, 271. 
 
 Belief of witnesses receivable in evidence, 
 316. 
 
 Berrien, Attorney-General, opinions of, as 
 to who are eligible as members of 
 courts-martial, 20, 21. 
 
 Board for retiring disabled officers, 186 ; 
 
 ., authority to convene, 186; by whom 
 assembled, 186 ; jurisdiction and powers 
 of, 187 ; members of, liable to chal- 
 lenge, 187 ; members of, must be sworn, 
 188; not bound to secrecy, 188; have 
 power to summon witnesses, 188; par- 
 ties before, may be allowed counsel, 
 188; contempts before, how punisha- 
 ble, 188; party before, not in arrest, 
 189 ; when open and when closed, 189 ; 
 rights of party before, 189; decision 
 of, 189; revision of proceedings of, 
 190 ; statute of limitation does not ap- 
 ply to, 190; record of, 191; compe- 
 tency of evidence in, 191 ; form of or- 
 der appointing, 325; extract from act 
 of Congress relating to, 362. 
 
 Breach of arrest, cashiering the penalty 
 for, 47. 
 
 Burden of proof, upon wliom lies the, 
 292, 293. 
 
 Cadets of the Military Academy subject 
 to what regulations, 9 ; when eligible 
 as members of courts-martial, 21, 22 ; 
 subject to what jurisdiction {note), 37. 
 
 Camp retainers, subject to the articles of 
 war, 29. 
 
 Capital punishment, how inflicted, 1 40 ; 
 should be in presence of all the troops, 
 166; by shooting, 166; by hanging, 167. 
 
 Cashiering and dismissal as punishments, 
 43. 
 
 Cashiering the penalty for breach of ar- 
 rest, 47 ; practice of the British service 
 in relation to, 48. 
 
 Causes of challenge, 73-76. 
 
 Censure of witnesses for improper con- 
 duct, 134. 
 
 Certainty must be attained as to party ac- 
 cused and party injured, 56 ; of time 
 and place of an offence, 57. 
 
 Certificate of judge advocate, form of, 330. 
 
 Challenge, by a prisoner, should be ad- 
 mitted when practicable, 6'J ; prisoner 
 must state his cause of, 68 ; good causes 
 of, 73-76; ancient severe rule respect- 
 ing, 74; court is adjourned when re- 
 duced by, 76; regulations respecting, 
 89 ; members of courts of inquiry lia- 
 ble to, 181 ; members of retiring boards 
 liable to, 187. 
 
 Challenges and oaths, 68-81. 
 
 Challenges to the array, 68. 
 
 Challenges to the favor, 71. 
 
 Challenge to fight a duel, articles of war, 
 relating to, 208, 341, 342 ; penalties at- 
 tached to the offence of sending, 209 ; 
 notes from Colonel S — to General — 
 containing, 209, 210; general order in 
 relation to sending, 210, 211. 
 
 Chance, an excuse from guilt, 119. 
 
 Chaplains not eligible as members of 
 courts-martial, 19, 20. 
 
 Character, evidence as to, when impor- 
 tant, 285; the practice of courts-mar- 
 tial to admit evidence of, 286; evidence 
 of, entitled to weight only in cases of 
 doubt, 287 ; in what cases evidence of, 
 is not admitted, 287 ; privilege of wit- 
 ness to protect his own, 313. 
 
 Charge, definition of a, 52 ; how to bo 
 preferred, 52 ; specifications to, must be 
 explicit, 54 ; must be read before tlio 
 court, 89 ; the judge advocate ha« the 
 riglilj to make correct, 90; additional, 
 may be preferred before arraignment, 
 91 ; a correct copy of, must be furnish- 
 ed to the accused, 108 ; custom of read- 
 ing to a witness. 111; can be no con- 
 viction of an offence greater t^an is 
 contained in, but may be of one less, 
 132, 133. 
 
 Charges and specifications, 52-58 ; judge 
 advocate must be fully instructed as to, 
 197; forms of under different articles 
 of war, 331-333. 
 
 Children, how far competent as witness- 
 es, 229. 
 
368 
 
 r^DEX. 
 
 Citizens, offences against, articles of war 
 relating to, 211-213. 
 
 Civil court, former acquittal or conviction 
 in, not a good plea in bar of trial before a 
 court-martial, 100. 
 
 Civilians, how far wtbin the jurisdiction 
 of courts-martial. 31, 32. 
 
 Clark, Peter, case of, 92. 
 
 Clergyman, a confession made to, not 
 privileged, 24G. 
 
 Clifford, Attorney-General, opinion of, as 
 to the power of the President to dis- 
 miss commissioned officers, 161. 
 
 Commands, unlawful, not to be obeyed, 
 120; lawful, disobedience of, 208. 
 
 Commissioned officers, courts-martial 
 must be composed of, 19; may be dis- 
 missed by the President without trial, 
 161-165. 
 
 Commissions, military, in Mexico, powers 
 of, defined, 12 ; when and how to be 
 constituted, 15 ; powers of, 16. 
 
 Communications, privileged, 244-248. 
 
 Commutation of punishment, in the power 
 of the President, 154 ; included in the 
 power to mitigate, 155, 157. 
 
 Competencj' of a witness, objections to, 
 when and how to be made, 303. 
 
 Competency of negroes as witnesses, 248- 
 251. 
 
 Complainant, testimony of, suBBcient for 
 conviction where the offence is -without 
 witnesses, 267. 
 
 Complaints of soldiers, by whom to be 
 investigated, 40. 
 
 Compulsory attendance of witnesses. 111. 
 
 Conduct, as presumptive evidence, 282 ; 
 mutinous, how taken cognizance of, 207 
 
 Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gen- 
 tleman, 220 ; case of an assistant sur- 
 geon charged with, 221-223. 
 
 Confe.-^sions to a clergyman or priest not 
 privileged, 246; are received in evi- 
 dence, 257; degree of credit to be at- 
 tached to, 257 ; classes of, 258 ; value 
 of, when voluntarj-, 258, 259; value of, 
 when made in consequence of induce- 
 ments held out, 259-261 ; admissible 
 in evidence when obtained by artifice, 
 261; facts made known in, when not 
 voluntary, may bo received in certain 
 cases, 262; ancient and modern usage 
 respecting. 263 ; of servants or agents, 
 how far evidence against a principal, 
 26.'i; the whole of, nuist be given in 
 evidence, 264; when void in point of 
 law, 265 ; when in writing, the docu- 
 ment must be produced. 265 ; introduc- 
 tion of, in evidence, 2 65. 
 
 Confidence, professional, must not be vio- 
 lated, 244. 
 
 Confinement and arrest, 46-51. 
 
 Confinement of non-commissioned ofiBcers 
 and soldiers, 49 ; limitation of, 50 ; sick- 
 ness of a soldier during, 168. 
 
 Confirmation of sentence, 151. 
 
 Congress, empowered by the constitution 
 to regulate land and naval forces, 334, 
 335. 
 
 Conspiracy, what evidence may be re- 
 ceived to estabhsh the existence of, 
 287-292. 
 
 Conspirators, the act of one the act of all, 
 289. 
 
 Constitution and composition of courts- 
 martial, 17. 
 
 Constitution, extracts from the, 334, 335. 
 
 Contempts, courts-martial have summary 
 power to punish for, 30 ; before courts 
 of inquiry, how punishable, 182 : be- 
 fore retiring boards, how punishable, 
 188. 
 
 Contradiction of a witness by the party 
 calling him, 316. 
 
 Control of court over judge advocate, 200. 
 
 Con-\action, a former, a valid plea in bar 
 of trial. 97 ; what constitutes. 98; de- 
 termined by a majority of votes, 128, 
 137 ; one witness legally sufficient for, 
 267. 
 
 Copies of inscriptions and documents, 
 when received as evidence, 278. 
 
 Corporeal, what punishments are called, 
 168. 
 
 Correspondence, written, as a proof of 
 handwriting, 272. 
 
 Corresponding with the enemy, article of 
 war relating to, 220 ; how punishable, 
 220. 
 
 Counsel, accused to have the benefit of, 
 65 ; may not address the court, 65 ; 
 may be objected to by the court, 65 ; 
 when introduced, 94 ; may be allowed 
 to parties before courts of inquiry, 1 82 ; 
 and to parties before retu-ing boards, 
 188. 
 
 Counsel for prisoner, the judge advocate 
 is, 195. 
 
 Courts-martial, jurisdiction of, defined by 
 Congress, 7 ; how regulated, 8 ; consti- 
 tution and composition of, 17 ; general, 
 by whom appointed. 17, 18; regiment- 
 al and garrison, by whom appointed, 
 18 ; warrant for assembling, by whom 
 issued, 18; must be composed of com- 
 missioned officers, 19; wLou to be 
 composed of militia officers, 22 ; num- 
 ber of members of, 22-25 ; presidents 
 of, 25 ; rank of members of, 25 ; juris- 
 diction of, 26, 31, 32, 37, 38, 299; compe- 
 tency and completeness ef jurisdiction 
 of, 27; subjectto what limitation of time, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 369 
 
 27 ; have power to punish for con- 
 tempts, 30 ; how far civilians are with- 
 in tlie jurisdiction of, 31, 32; jurisdic- 
 tion of, after expiration of term of ser- 
 vice, 32 ; powers of, to intiict fines and 
 imprisonment, 40 ; oftences within the 
 jurisdiction of 41, 42; cannot bo de- 
 manded by officers, 51; parties to the 
 trial in, 51) ; duties of the president of, 
 59; responsibility of members of, 59; 
 relation of, to ordinary courts, 60 ; can- 
 not control the nature of arrest of a 
 prisoner, 62; record of the proceed- 
 ings of, how kept, 66 ; a member of 
 may be challenged when a material 
 witness, 7 4 ; is adjourned when reduced 
 by challenges, 76; form of oath taken 
 by all members of, 77; formation, ad- 
 journment and dissolution of, 82 ; hours 
 of session of, S3 ; time and place of as- 
 sembling, 83 ; its presiding officer its 
 only organ, 83 ; dclib. rate in secret, 
 84, detail of, 88; illegal acts of void, 
 99; finding of verdict by, 125; mem- 
 bers of, must not disclose votes given 
 at the finding, 127; may animadvert on 
 the conduct of witnesses, 134; sen- 
 tence by, 137 ; punislunents awarded by, 
 137; regimental, must be summoned 
 on complaint of a soldier, 170, 172, 174, 
 175; control of, over judge advocate, 
 200 ; jurisdiction of, not limited by 
 place, 299 ; members of as witnesses, 
 302 ; question as to the competency of, 
 to original evidence, 302; forms of or- 
 ders appointing, 323, 324; mode of re- 
 cording proceedings of, 325-329; in 
 time of war, extract from act of Con- 
 gress relating to, 363. 
 Courts of Inquiry, 179; authority to con- 
 vene, 179 ; number of members of, 180; 
 jurisdiction of, 180 ; rights of the ac- 
 cused in, 180; duties of judge advocate 
 in, 181 ; members of, may be challenged, 
 181; customary to keep proceedings of, 
 secret, 181; power of, to summon wit- 
 nesses, 182; parties before, allowed 
 counsel/ 182; hours of sitting of, 182; 
 are closed courts, 182 ; contempts 
 before, how punishable, 182; accused 
 not in arrest when attending, 182; rec- 
 ord of, 182; statute of limitation not 
 applicable to, 183-185; General Ma- 
 comb on, 183; De Hart on, 183; not 
 limited in Great Britain, 185; duties of 
 a judge advocate before, 203 ; object of, 
 203 ; the judge advocate is the legal 
 adviser of 203; mode of proceeding 
 in, 204 ; proceedings of, privileged in 
 capital cases, 248 ; form of order ap- 
 pointing, 324. 
 24 
 
 Credit of witnesses, modes of impeach- 
 ing, 314, 315. 
 
 Crime, what constitutes, according to 
 Blackstono, 117; infamous, conviction 
 of, renders a witness incompetent, 232 ; 
 effect of conviction of, in another state, 
 234; parties charged with, seldom 
 competent as witnesses, 236; an indi- 
 vidual charged with, may be rendered 
 competent as a witness by a separate 
 verdict, 237 ; rights guaranteed by the 
 constitution to persons accused of, 334, 
 335. 
 
 Crittenden, Attorney-General, opinion of 
 on the pardoning power of the Presi- 
 dent, 154. 
 
 Cross-examination, 113; uses of, 306; 
 leading questions in, when admitted 
 and when not admitted, 307, 308. 
 
 Cusliing, Attorney-General, opinion of as 
 to the eligibility of cadets to sit on 
 courts-martial, 21; opinion of, in re- 
 lation to absence of members from 
 court-martial, 85 ; opinion of in rela- 
 tion to remission of sentence, 160; 
 opinion of, as to power of the President 
 to dismiss commissioned officers, 162. 
 
 Custody of prisoners charged with crimes, 
 49, 50. 
 
 Custom of war, the lex non scripta of the 
 army, 9. 
 
 Deaf and dumb persons, how far compe- 
 tent as witnesses, 228. 
 
 Deatli by hanging, punishment of 167. 
 
 Death l)y shooting, punishment of, 166. 
 
 Death penalty, requires the concurrence 
 of two-thirds of the court, 128, 137. 
 
 Death, sentence of, when prohibited and 
 when permitted by the articles of war, 
 39. 
 
 Debt, verdict of, cannot be found against 
 a soldier, 142. 
 
 Declarations, verbal and written, how far 
 admissible in evidence, 252 ; of the 
 dying, 253-256. 
 
 Defect of religious principle in a witness, 
 230. 
 
 Defect of understanding makes a witness 
 incompetent, 227. 
 
 Defence, how entered upon, 1 15 ; prisoner 
 may request time to prepare for, L16; 
 reply of judge advocate to, 122. 
 
 Do Hart, on courts of inquiry, 183. 
 
 Delay of trial, application for, 87. 
 
 Deliberations of courts-martial are in se- 
 cret, 84 ; how conducted at the finding, 
 125 ; remarks of Mr. Tyler upon, at the 
 finding, 126. 
 
 Deposition of witnesses who are civilians 
 may be taken, 111. 
 
370 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Descriptive averments, proof of, 295. 
 
 Desertion, how punished, 39 ; punishable 
 after expiration of term of service, 36 ; 
 case of, from the British army in Spain, 
 121 ; extracts from acts of Congress in 
 relation to, 358. 
 
 Detail of courts-martial, 88. 
 
 Devlin, Lieutenant, case of, 158; opinion 
 of the attorney-general on the case of, 
 158. 
 
 Direct evidence, definition of, 224; weight 
 of, compared with that of presumptive 
 evidence, 281. 
 
 Disabled officers, boards for retiring, 186- 
 189. 
 
 Discharges from service, how only to be 
 given, 163. 
 
 Dismissal and cashiering as punishments, 
 43. 
 
 Disobedience of superior officers, 208. 
 
 Dissolution of courts-martial, 82. 
 
 Distinctive jurisdiction, 37. 
 
 Divisible averments, 294. 
 
 Documents, private, must be produced 
 when oflered as evidence, 268, 269 ; 
 when presumed to have been destroyed, 
 278, 279; evidence receivable of the 
 destruction of, 279. 
 
 Dress of officers retired from service, 
 190. 
 
 Drumming out, sentence of, how execut- 
 ed, 168. 
 
 Drunkenness aggravates an offence, 118. 
 
 Drunkenness on duty, article of war in 
 relation to, 217; cases of officers ac- 
 cused of, 217 ; general orders in rela- 
 tion to, 217-220. 
 
 Duel, challenges to fight, 208, 211. 
 
 Duties of a judge advocate, 198,202, 203. 
 
 Dying declarations, how far admissible 
 in evidence, 253-256; the court must 
 decide on the admissibility of, 254; are 
 open to direct contradiction, 255. 
 
 Embezzlement of money, pimishments at- 
 tached to the oflonce of, 214; case of 
 Captain T. J., accused of, 214; general 
 order relating to the case of Captain T. 
 J. acquitted of, by court-martial, 214- 
 217 ; extracts from act of Congress re- 
 lating to, 359, 360. 
 
 Enem)', corresponding with, how punish- 
 able, 220. 
 
 Erskine, Lord, case of a mutineer nar- 
 rated by, 237. 
 
 Evidence, persons who give, to be ex- 
 amined on oath, or affirmation, SO ; how 
 to be recordccl, 110; a witness has a 
 right to explain, 113; record of his own 
 maybe read over to a witness, 114; 
 close of prosecution precludes addition- 
 
 al, 115; to be discussed in free con- 
 versation at the finding, 125; compe- 
 tent, before retiring boards, 191 ; du- 
 ties of judge advocate m relation to, 
 200; definition of, 224, various kinds 
 and degrees of, 224, 225' admissibility 
 of, 225; cases in which a witness is 
 incompetent to give, 226 ; of deaf and 
 dumb persons and of lunatics and mo- 
 nomaniacs, 228; of chOdren, 229; of 
 atheists and Jews, 231; of husband 
 and wife, 239-241 ; of accomplices. 
 242-244; of negroes, 248-251; hear- 
 say, 251, 256; of verbal and written 
 declarations, 252 ; of dying declara- 
 tions, 253-256; of confessions, 257- 
 265^ exclusion of secondary, 266 ; of 
 complainant, 267 ; primary, 268-27 1 ; 
 secondary, 275-279; presumptive, 279- 
 300. 
 
 Examination in chief, 113, 305 ; how far 
 leading questions are allowed on, 305, 
 306. 
 
 Examination of witnesses, 109; 300-306. 
 
 Examined copies of records and pubhc 
 books good as evidence, 268. 
 
 Exclusion of secondary evidence, 266. 
 
 Execution of martial law, 14. 
 
 Execution of sentence, 1G6-169. 
 
 Experts, opinions of, are evidence, 318; 
 remarkable instance of error in the 
 answers of, 318. 
 
 Expiration of term of service, jurisdiction 
 of courts-martial after, 32. 
 
 Eyre, C. B., on dying declarations as evi- 
 dence, 253. 
 
 Favor, challenges to the, 7 1. 
 
 Fellows, Dr , case of, 248. 
 
 Final action on the proceedings of a court- 
 martial, 159. 
 
 Finding, 125-136 ; votes on, how sub- 
 mitted to the court, 136; becomes the 
 decision of the court, 136; sentence of 
 the court must be in strict accordance 
 with, 139; form of, 329. 
 
 Fines, powers of courts-martial to inflict, 
 40, 41. 
 
 Flight, legal presumption from 283. 
 
 Flogging in the army, when abolished, 
 363. 
 
 Forcing a safeguard, extract from act of 
 Congress relating to, 364. 
 
 Formation of courts-martial, 82. 
 
 Former trial, testimonj' given on, how 
 received, 256. 
 
 Form of arraignment of a prisoner, 94. 
 
 Form of finding of courts-martial, 329. 
 
 Form of oath taken by members of 
 courts-martial, 77 ; by the judge advo- 
 cate, 79; by a witness, 80. 
 
rNDEX. 
 
 371 
 
 Form of plea, no special, required liy a | 
 
 court-martial, 109. 
 Forms of oniers, 32:5-."5;50 
 Frivolous and vexatious accusations, 184. 
 Frye, Lieutenant, case of, illegally i^in- 
 
 victed, 5i). 
 Fugitives from service or labor, extract 
 
 from act of Congress relating to, 364. 
 
 Garrison courts-martial, appointed by 
 whom, IS; liow constituted, 24; juris- 
 diction of, 37 ; members of, how sworn, 
 93 ; record of proceedings of, 202 ; form 
 of order appointing, 324. 
 
 Gassawa}', Lieutenant, case of, 100. 
 
 General courts-martial, who have power 
 to appoint, 17, 13; number of members 
 of, 22 ; question raised respecting legal- 
 ity of, witli less than thirteen members, 
 23 ; when supernumerary officers may 
 be appointed on, 24; jurisdiction of, 31, 
 37, 38; have exclusive cognizance of 
 what olfences, 41 ; order of assembly of, 
 67; record of, nuist be carefully pre- 
 served, 1 G 1 ; record of proceedings of, 
 202 ; copy of proceedings of must be 
 sent to the War Department, 202 ; form 
 of order appointing, 323 ; form of order 
 confirming or disapproving proceedings 
 of, 329. 
 
 General regulations of the army, by whom 
 prepared, 8 ; have legal effect, 9 ; gov- 
 ern the cadets of the Military Acade- 
 my, 9. 
 
 Guilt, what constitute excuses from, 117- 
 121. 
 
 Guilty, pleading, closes prosecution, 95. 
 
 Guthrie, Midshipman, case of, 92. 
 
 Hall, Captain, case of, 149; opinion of 
 Attorney-General Wirt on, 149. 
 
 Handwriting, proof of, 2G9-274. 
 
 Hanging, capital punishment by, 167. 
 
 Hearsay evidence not receivable, 251; 
 hable to be fallacious, 251; exception 
 to tiie rule of, 25G. 
 
 Hooe, Lieutenant, case of 248. 
 
 Hours of session of a court-martial, 83 ; 
 of courts of inquiry, 182. 
 
 Howe, Captain, ease of, 100, 104. 
 
 Husband and wife, cannot be witnesses 
 for or against each other, 239; evi- 
 dence of, receivable in collateral pro- 
 ceedings, 240 ; may testify against each 
 other as to personal injuries, 241. 
 
 Identity of a prisoner must be ascertain- 
 ed. 56 ; averments as to, 297. 
 Idiocy, total, excuses from guilt, 118. 
 Idiots, incompetent as witnesses, 227 
 Ignorance, excuses from guilt, 119. 
 
 Illegal courts-martial, acts of, void. 99. 
 
 Illness of prisoner or members of a court- 
 martial may be cause of adjournment, 
 82. 
 
 Illness of witness, 110. 
 
 Immaterial averments, considered as sur- 
 plusage, 297. 
 
 Impeaching the credit of witnesses, 314. 
 
 Imprisonment, powers of courts-martial 
 to punisli by, 40, 41 ; sicl<ness of a 
 soldier during, 168; place of, not named 
 in sentence of court-martial, 169; time 
 of, 1G9. 
 
 Incidents of the trial by court-martial, 
 88-124. 
 
 Incompetency of witnesses, 226-235; 
 from defect of religious principle, 230 ; 
 by reason of interest, 234. 
 
 Indian sentenced for murder, case of, 154. 
 
 Indirect evidence, definition of, 225. 
 
 Infamy, as a cause of incompetency m a 
 witness, 232. 
 
 Inferiors, protection to, 170. 
 
 Innocence, presumed b}' the law till the 
 contrary is proved, 282. 
 
 Inquiry, courts of, see Courts of inquiry. 
 
 Insanity, absolute, excuses from guilt, 118. 
 
 Insanity of a prisoner causes cessation of 
 proceedings, 95. 
 
 Instruments, written, contents of, how 
 proved, 268; not necessary to prove 
 that a person acts in a public capaci- 
 ty, 274; when in possession of the ad- 
 verse part}^, 275; notice to adverse 
 party to produce, 276. 
 
 Intention, must be specified in a charge, 
 55 ; an important point for considera- 
 tion in a charge of conspiracy, 290. 
 
 Intentions, in criminal matters, presumed 
 from actions, 282. 
 
 Intents, when sufficient to presume one 
 of several, 205. 
 
 Interest, as a cause of incompetency of a 
 witness, 234-236. 
 
 Interpreters, in courts-martial, GG; must 
 not violate confidence, 245. 
 
 Intoxication aggravates an offence, 118. 
 
 Intoxication in a witness, court must de- 
 cide on the fact of, 229. 
 
 Invalid pleas in bar of trial, 100. 
 
 Invasion justifies suspension of the writ 
 of habeas corpus, 13, 14. 
 
 Irrelevant questions may not bo put on a 
 cross-examination, 307. 
 
 Issue, evidence must be confined to, 
 283-292; substance of, only need be 
 proved, 293-300. 
 
 Jews, competent as witnesses, 231. 
 Judge advocate, responsibility of. 60 ; by 
 whom appointed, CI, 62; should exer- 
 
372 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 cise the right of challenge, 70 ; cannot I 
 be challenged, 70; oath administered 
 by, to general courts-martial, 79; form 
 of oath taken by, 79 ; oath administer- 
 ed by, to a witness, 80: absence of, 
 from court-martial, 86 ; essential that 
 he should be sworn, 92; trial how 
 opened bj', 109; assistant of, if a wit- 
 ness, must be first examined, 109; re- 
 ply of, to defence of prisoner, 122; re- 
 ply of, to rejoinder, 12:5 ; duty of, during 
 deliberation by the court, 126; duties 
 of, in courts of inquiry, 181 ; authority 
 to appoint, 192; duties of, 192, 198"; 
 should be a military person, 193 ; Mc Ar- 
 thur on the qualifications of 193; Sir 
 Charles J. Napier on the qualifications 
 of, 194; is the official prosecutor, 194; 
 how far counsel for the prisoner, 195 ; 
 may be assisted by counsel, 196; must 
 be weU informed as to the circum- 
 stances of a case, 197; must summon 
 witnesses, 198 ; must make a fair copy 
 of the record of proceedings. 199 ; has 
 the right of reply to defence of prison- 
 er, 200: duties of, with regard to evi- 
 dence, 200 ; liow far under control of 
 the court, 200; is bound to give his 
 opinion to the court, 201 ; must trans- 
 mit a copy of proceedings to the War 
 Department, 202; time of attendance of, 
 202 ; duties of, before courts of inquiry, 
 203, 204; form of certificate of, 330/ 
 
 Judgment, pleas in bar of, 117-122. 
 
 Jurisdiction, distinctive, 37. 
 
 Jurisdiction, in what cases presumed by 
 the law, 293. 
 
 Jurisdiction of boards for retiring dis- 
 aliled officers, 187. 
 
 Jurisdiction of courts-martial, 26-38; de- 
 fined by Congress, 7 ; not limited by 
 place, 299. 
 
 Jurisdiction of courts of inquiry, 180. 
 
 Jurisdiction of the court, pleading to, 96. 
 
 Jurisdictions, accountabilit}' to two, set- 
 tled to be lawful, 102. 
 
 Laws of the land, offences against, by 
 
 ofBccrs or soldiers. 212. 
 Leading questions, how far allowed on 
 
 the examination in chief, 305, 306 ; are 
 
 allowed on the cross-examination. 307 ; 
 
 when not admitted, 308. 
 Letters, value of, as a proof of hand- 
 
 writiufi 272. 
 Liberty, danger to, from the power of the 
 
 President to dismiss officers, 104. 
 Limitation, statute of, a valid plea in bar 
 
 of trial, 1 04. 
 List of witnesses for the prosecution 
 
 usually given to a prisoner, 63, 65. 
 
 Lunatics, when competent as witnesses, 
 228. 
 
 McArthur on the qualifications of a judge 
 advocate, 193; case reported by, of a 
 conviction obtained on the evidence ot 
 the complainant, 267. 
 
 Mackenzie, Commander, allusion to the 
 case of, 197. 
 
 Macomb, General, on coints of inquiry, 
 
 , 183. 
 
 Majority of votes of a court-martial con- 
 vict or acquit a prisoner, 128, 137. 
 
 Mahce, a presumption of law from injuri- 
 ous actions, 282. 
 
 ilarines, when officers of, may be asso- 
 ciated on courts-martial, whh officers 
 of land forces, 22. 
 
 Marshall, Chief Justice, on privilege of 
 witness in refusing to answer, 310. 
 
 Martial law, how distinguished from mili- 
 tary law, 10; as defined by the Duke 
 of Wellington, 1 ; declared in Mexico 
 by General Scott, 11 ; in Great Britam 
 and the L^nited States, 13 ; definition 
 of, 14; how executed, 14. 
 
 Mason, Attorney-General, opinions of, as 
 to the power of the President to miti- 
 gate punishment, 156. 
 
 Medical officers, when put in arrest, 47 ; 
 when witnesses, are A\ithout privilege, 
 246. 
 
 Meetings of conspirators, conduct at, ad 
 missible in evidence, 291. 
 
 ilcmbers of a court of inquiry, number 
 of, 180. 
 
 ^lembers of courts-martial, regulations 
 respecting the numbers of, 22 ; rank of, 
 25; responsibility of, 59; as witnesses. 
 302. 
 
 Memoranda of facts may be referred to 
 by a witness, 110, 309, 310. 
 
 Mental derangement, in order to exclude 
 a witness, must be proved, 228. 
 
 Mercy, recommendation of prisoner to. 
 145. 
 
 Mexico, martial law declared in, by Gen- 
 eral Scott, 11. 
 
 Military Academy, c.ndets of, subject to 
 what regulations, 9. 
 
 Militar}^ commissions in Mexico, powers 
 of, defined, 12. 
 
 Military commissions, when and how to 
 be constituted, 15, powers of, 16. 
 
 Militarj- law, general remarks on, 7 ; dis- 
 tinguished from martial law, 10. 
 
 Military person, may be jjunishcd by 
 courts-martial for contempts of court, 
 31 ; judge advocate must be a, 193. 
 
 Militia, when subject to rules and articles 
 of war, 22, 28 ; powers of Congress m 
 
 i 
 
INDEX 
 
 373 
 
 relation to, 334, 335 ; extracts from act 
 of Congress relatiug to, 3G1. 
 
 Misfortune, excuses from guilt, 119. 
 
 Mitigation of puuislunent, 152. 
 
 Mode of committing an offence, how far 
 necessary to prove averments of, 296. 
 
 Modifying sentence of court-martial, 
 143-1-45. 
 
 Money, embezzlement of, 214-217. 
 
 Monomaniacs, testimony of, excluded, 
 228. 
 
 Motives which actuated a court may be 
 alluded to in the sentence, 141. 
 
 Mute by the visitation of God, 95. 
 
 Mute, standing, before a general court- 
 martial, 94. 
 
 Mutilated court-martial, cannot modify a 
 sentence, 144; assembled for revision, 
 150; opinion of Attorney-General Gush- 
 ing in relation to, 150. 
 
 Mutinous conduct, not named in the arti- 
 cles of war, 207 
 
 Mutiny, definition of, 205, 20G; begin- 
 ning, exciting, causing and joiniug in, 
 defined, 20G; what evidence may be 
 received to establish a charge of, 287. 
 
 Xame of party accused must be specified, 
 56. 
 
 Xame of party injured must be proved as 
 laid, 295 ; spelling of name of, 296 ; 
 
 Xame of third person must be proved, 296. 
 
 Xapier, Sir Charles J., on the qualifica- 
 tions of a judge advocate, 194. 
 
 Xecessity, inevitable, as an excuse from 
 guilt, 119. 
 
 Xegative, proof of, when not necessary, 
 274; burden of proving, lies with 
 whom, 292 ; remarks of Judge Story 
 on proving the, 293. 
 
 Xegroes, competency of, as witnesses, 
 248-251; opinion of Mr. Key on the 
 competency of, 249 ; remarks of the 
 secretary of the navy on the compe- 
 tency of, 250. 
 
 New matter in defence may be rebutted 
 by new evidence, 122. 
 
 New trial, when granted, 148-150. 
 
 Xon-agreemcnt of witnes-ses, 319. 
 
 Non-commissioned officers, can be re- 
 duced to the ranks for certain offences, 
 40, punishments for, 44; when placed 
 in confinement, 49; wrongs of, how to 
 be redressed, 172. 
 
 Xot guilty the most usual plea, 108. 
 
 Notice to adverse party to produce in- 
 struments, 276 ; when dispensed with, 
 277. 
 
 Xumber of members in courts of inquirj', 
 180 ; in courts-martial, 22 
 
 Oath, persons who give evidence to be 
 examined on, or affirmation, 80 ; form 
 of, taken by a witness, 80 ; when ad- 
 ministered to the court and to the 
 judge advocate, 92 ; how administered 
 in regimental and garrison courts-mar- 
 tial, 93 ; must be administered to 
 boards for retiring disabled officers, 
 188. 
 
 Oaths, 77; definition of, 77; should be 
 administered witli solemnity, 80. 
 
 Oath taken by all the members of a court- 
 martial, 7 7 ; obligations of, 7 8 ; by whom 
 administered, 79. 
 
 Objections to the competency of a witness, 
 when and how to be made, 303. 
 
 Obligations of the oath taken by members 
 of a court-martial, 78. 
 
 OfTences against citizens, articles of war 
 in relation to, 211-213. 
 
 Ofi'ences and punishment, 37—15. 
 
 Offences, to be charged imder what arti- 
 cles, 52, 53 ; specifications of, must be 
 explicit, 54; a pri-soner may be tried 
 for several at the same lime, 54 ; mode 
 of committing, how far necessary to 
 prove averments of, 296 ; prisoner may 
 be convicted of less, but not of greater, 
 132, 133. 
 
 Offences over which a general court-mar- 
 tial alone has cognizance, 41. 
 
 Officers, arrest and confinement of, 46; 
 what punishments are applicable to, 
 43 ; may in certain cases be ordered in 
 arrest by inferiors, 48, 49 ; limitation of 
 confinement of, 50; have no right to 
 demand a court-martial, 51; commis- 
 sioned, may be dismissed by the Pres- 
 ident without trial, 161-165; wrongs 
 of, how redress is to be sought for, 
 170; when violence to, becomes the 
 crime of mutiny, 207 ; disobedience of, 
 208; extracts from act of Congress re- 
 lating to trials of, 358. 
 
 Officers, disabled, boards for retiring, 
 166-189. 
 
 Officers, medical, when put in arrest, 47. 
 
 Officers, hon-commissioned. how punish- 
 ed, 44 ; must be reduced before punish- 
 ment in certain cases, 45. 
 
 Officers, retiring, extracts from act of 
 Congress relating to, 361-363. 
 
 Official communications may be privi- 
 I leged, 247. 
 
 Onus probandi, upon whom lies the, 292, 
 293. 
 
 Opinion maliciously declared, a good 
 cause of challenge, 73. 
 
 Opinion of judge advocate, must be given 
 to the court, 201: must be recorded, 
 
374 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Opinions of experts as evidence, liow far 
 entitled to weight, 318; of witnesses, 
 when receivable' in evidence, 317. 
 
 Order for convening a court-martial, how 
 read, 89. 
 
 Order of examination of witnesses, 304. 
 
 Orders, illegal, not to be obeyed, 120. 
 
 Palliation of an offence, evidence in, when 
 to be allowed its effect, 133. 
 
 Pardon, a valid plea in bar of trial, 103. 
 
 Pardoning power, given to the President 
 by the Constitution, 153. 
 
 Parol evidimce, 224. 
 
 Pay and rations of retiring ofiBcers, 189. 
 
 Pay of a soldier, cannot be made over by 
 a court-martial to another person, 142. 
 
 Pay, suspension of, as punishment of 
 commissioned officers, 39. 
 
 Penalties exceeding the power of the 
 minor courts-martial to inflict, 42. 
 
 Persons committing offence, averments 
 as to identity of, 297. 
 
 Place, jurisdiction of courts-martial not 
 limited by, 299. 
 
 Place of an offence must be specified in 
 a charge, 57 ; averments as to, must be 
 laid with certainty, 299 
 
 Place of assembly of a court-martial, 83. 
 
 Place of imprisonment, not named in sen- 
 tence of court-martial, 169 
 
 Pleading guilty, 05; to specifications only, 
 96; renders a prisoner a competent 
 witness against his co-defendants, 238. 
 
 Pleading to the jurisdiction of the court, 
 96. 
 
 Pleas in bar of judgment, 117-122. 
 
 Pleas in bar of trial, 96-108. 
 
 Pleas, kinds of, permitted, 94; how to be 
 made, 108; where not admitted, 108; 
 must be recorded, 108. 
 
 Positive evidence, defmiticn of, 224. 
 
 Positive proof, definition of, 225. 
 
 Possession of written instruments by the 
 adverse party, 275. 
 
 Postponement of trial, application for, 
 87, 94. 
 
 Presence of one witness not allowed 
 during the examination of another, 301. 
 
 President can commute or mitigate pun- 
 ishment, 153, 154; can dismiss a com- 
 missioned officer without trial, 161-165. 
 
 President of a court-martial the senior 
 member present, 25 ; duties of, 59. 
 
 Presiding officer of a court-martial its 
 only organ, 83. 
 
 Presumptions of law, 282. 
 
 Presumptive evidence, 225, 279-300. 
 
 Presumptive proof, definition of, 225. 
 
 Priest, a confession made to. not privi- 
 leged, 240. 
 
 Primary evidence, 268-274. 
 
 Principal challenge, what are causes of, 
 71. 
 
 Prisoner charged with crimes, custody of, 
 49, 50; court-martial cannot control 
 the nature of his arrest, 62 ; should be 
 furnished with a copy of the charges 
 against him, 62 ; a list of witnesses for 
 the prosecution usually given to. 03, 
 65 , should have a detail of members 
 of the court, 64 ; to have benefit of 
 counsel, 65 ; challenges by, should be 
 admitted when practicable, 69 ; form 
 of arraignment of, 94; standing mute 
 before a general court-martial, 94 ; pro- 
 ceedings cease against when found to 
 be insane, 95 ; mute by the visitation 
 of God, 95 ; address of, in defence, 116; 
 address of, may be read by his counsel^ 
 116; allowed to speak last, 124; may 
 be convicted of an offence less than 
 the one charged, but not of a greater, 
 132, 133; recommendation of, to mer- 
 cy, 145 ; how far the judge advocate is 
 counsel for. 195. 
 
 Privileged communications, 244—248. 
 
 Privilege of witness in refusing to an- 
 swer, 310-314. 
 
 Publication of proceedings of courts-mar- 
 tial, how forbidden, 88. 
 
 Punishment and offences, 37-45. 
 I Punishment, capital, how inflicted, 140; 
 should be in presence of all the troops, 
 166; by shooting, 166; by hanging, 
 167. 
 
 Punishment, corporeal, term how used, 
 168. 
 
 Punishment for various offences speci- 
 fied in the articles. of war, 38. 
 
 Punishment, previous, a doubtful plea in 
 bar of trial, 103. 
 
 Punishment, votes to decide, 140 ; miti- 
 gation of, 152. 
 
 Punishments awarded by courts-martial, 
 137. 
 
 Punishments, how regulated in kind and 
 degree, 42 ; when cruel and when un- 
 usual, 43; for officers, 43; for non- 
 commissioned officers and soldiers, 44 ; 
 for offences not enumerated, 45 ; for 
 mutiny and sedition, 205; for scntling 
 a challenge, 209; for embezzlement of 
 money, 214; for being drunk on duty. 
 217; for corresponding with the ene- 
 my, 220. 
 
 Proceedings of courts-martial, publica- 
 tion of, how forbidden, 88; records of, 
 202 ; mode of recording, 325-329, 
 
 Procession, order of, at an execution, 166. 
 
 Professional confidence must not be vio- 
 lated, 244. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 375 
 
 Proof of handwriting, 269-2'74; of neg- 
 ative, when not uecessaiy, 274; of 
 acting in a public capacity, 274; of 
 writing behig in possession of adverse 
 party, 275; wluit circumstances will 
 amount to, 2S1 of principal matter in 
 issue is sufficient, 294; of veracity of 
 witnesses, 314; of contradictory state- 
 ments of witnesses, 315. 
 
 Proof positive and proof presumptive, 
 225. 
 
 Prosecution, when closed, precludes fui'- 
 ther evidence, 115; closing of, must 
 be recorded, 115; must precede the de- 
 fence, 115. 
 
 Prosecutor, official, the judge advocate, 
 194. 
 
 Protection to inferiors, 1 70. 
 
 Provocation as an excuse from guilt, 152 
 
 Provost-marshal, duty of, at an execution, 
 167. 
 
 Pursers, not eligible as members of courts- 
 martial, 20. 
 
 Questions to a witness, how to be put, 
 112; when put by the court cannot be 
 oljjected to, 113; immaterial, may be 
 expimged, 114. 
 
 Questions which a prisoner may refuse 
 to answer, 310-314. 
 
 Rank of members of courts-martial, 25. 
 
 Rank, suspension from, as a pimishment 
 of commissioned officers, 39. 
 
 Ranks, nou-commissioned officers can be 
 reduced to the, for certain offences, 40. 
 
 Ramsay, Captain, opinion of the attorney- 
 general on the case of, 157. 
 
 Reading order convening a court-martial, 
 89 ; charges and specitications, 89. 
 
 Rebellion justifies suspension of the writ 
 onidbea.i corjnt.s, 13, 14. 
 
 Recall of witnesses 124. 
 
 Recommendation of prisoner to mercy, 
 145. 
 
 Record of board for retiring disabled offi- 
 cers, 191. 
 
 Record of court of inquiry, 182. 
 
 Record of the proceedings of a court- 
 martial, how kept, 61) ; must show that 
 required oaths have been administered, 
 92, 93 ; fair copy of, to be read over to I 
 the court at the finding, 125; how au- 
 thenticated, 143; must be carefully pre- i 
 served, 161 ; must be kept by the judge j 
 advocate, 198 ; in what manner to be 
 kept, 199; mode of making, 325-329. j 
 
 Records of courts of justice are primary j 
 evidence. 268. i 
 
 Redressing wrongs, and appeals, 170- 1 
 176. 1 
 
 Re-examination of witnosses, 113; to 
 what confined, 308. 
 
 Refusing to answer, privilege of witness 
 in, 310-314. 
 
 Regimental courts-martial, appointed by 
 whom, 18; how constituted, 24; juris- 
 diction of, 37 ; have power to investi- 
 gate complaints of soldiers, 40; mem- 
 bers of, how sworn, 93 ; must be sum- 
 moned on complaint of a soldier, 170, 
 172, 174, 175 ; mode of proceeding in, 
 for redress of wrongs, 176; appeal from 
 decision of, 177; records of proceedings 
 of, 202; form of order appointing, 324. 
 
 Rejoinder, permitted to tlio defence, 123. 
 
 Relevancy of evidence, 284. 
 
 Remarks on articles of war, 205-223. 
 
 Remission of sentence, is implied in an 
 order to return to duty, 160, 168. 
 
 Reply of judge advocate to defence of 
 prisoner, 122, 200. 
 
 Resignation of commissioned officers, ex- 
 tract from act of Congress relating to, 
 363. 
 
 Res[)onsiliility of members of courts- 
 martial, 59 ; of judge advocates, 60. 
 
 Retainers to the camp subject to the ar- 
 ticles of war, 29. 
 
 Retiring officers, extracts from act of Con- 
 gress relating to, 361-363. 
 
 Revision of sentence, 146; proceedings 
 in, 147 ; causes for, 147 ; mutilated court 
 assembled for, 1 50. 
 
 Rules and articles of war, when adopted 
 by Congress, 8. 
 
 Rules of procedure in military prosecu- 
 tions, 197, 202. 
 
 Sacramentum militare, clings indissolu- 
 bly, 105. 
 
 Scott, General, remarks of, respecting 
 martial law, 12. 
 
 Search for documents must be made be- 
 fore secondary evidence is admitted, 
 278. 
 
 Secondary evidence, 275-279; of the ex- 
 clusion of 266. 
 
 Secrecj-, members of a court-martial 
 sworn to, 78; reasons for, in courts- 
 martial, 79; respecting votes, 127. 
 
 Secretary of war has power to convene 
 general courts-martial, 18, 19. 
 
 Sedition, 205; definition of. 206; what 
 evidence may be received to establish 
 a charge of, 287. 
 
 Sentence by court-martial, 137-145; must 
 bo in accordance with the finding, 139; 
 wording of, should be clear, 140 ; mo- 
 tives of the court may bo alluded to in, 
 141 ; of court-martial, modification of, 
 133, 143-145; revision and confirma- 
 
376 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 tion of, 146-1G5; remission of. implied 
 
 in an order to return to duty, 160, 168 ; 
 
 execution of, 166-169; form of. 33C. 
 
 Sentences and decisions thereon, cited in 
 
 illustration, 141. 
 Shooting, capital punishment hy, 166. 
 Sickness of a soldier when in contine- 
 
 ment, 168. 
 Siege, state of, in continental Europe, 10. 
 Signature, opinions of skilled persons 
 may be received as to the genuineness 
 of, 273. 
 Slaves, incompetency of, as witnesses, 250 
 Soldiers, punishments for, 44; when 
 placed in confinement, 4 9 ; wrongs of, 
 how redress is to be sought for, 172. 
 Special pleas in bar of trial, 97. 
 Special verdict, may be found by a court- 
 martial, 129 ; cases in illustration of, 
 129-132. 
 Specification, definition of a, 52 ; want of, 
 
 as a plea in bar of trial, 106, 107. 
 Specifications to a charge, how to be made, 
 54-58 ; must be certain as to the party 
 accused and the party injured, 56 , to 
 be read before the court. 89 ; efi'ect of 
 a prisoner pleading guilty to, 96; forms 
 of, under different articles of war, 331- 
 333. 
 Spelling of names, correctness of, how 
 
 far important, 296. 
 Spies, to be tried by military courts, 30; 
 extract from act of Congress relating 
 to, 363. 
 Standing mute before a general court- 
 martial, 94. 
 State of siege in continental Europe, 10. 
 Statute of limitation, a valid plea in bar 
 of trial, 104; not applicable to courts 
 of inquirj-, 183 ; not applicable to boards 
 for retiring disabled officers, 190. 
 Story, Justice, opinion of, as to the num- 
 ber of members of a general court- 
 martial, 24. 
 Striking a superior officer, when the crime 
 
 of mutiny. 207. 
 Successor to an officer ordering a court- 
 martial, powers of, ] 60. 
 Summoning witnesses, provision respect- 
 ing, 64 ; the duty of the judge-advo- 
 cate, 198. 
 Supernumeraries, when to be appointed on 
 general courts-martial, 24; liable to 
 be challenged, 76; must be present 
 throughout the session, 85. 
 Supreme Court, relation of, to courts-mar- 
 tial, 60. 
 Surgeons, not eligible as members of 
 courts-martial, 19,20; may remain in 
 court during the examination of wit- 
 nesses, 301. 
 
 Sur-rejoinder, allowed to prosecution, 123. 
 Suspension of pay and emolument of 
 
 officers, as a punishment. 39. 
 Sutlers, subject to the article of war, 29; 
 
 extract from act of Congress relating 
 
 to, 363. 
 Sword, depriving an officer of, when in 
 
 arrest, 47. 
 
 Terra of service, jurisdiction of courts- 
 martial after expiration of, 32. 
 
 Testimony conflicting, of witnesses, 319. 
 
 Testimony given on a former trial, how 
 to be received, 256. 
 
 Threats, how far an excuse from guilt. 
 121. 
 
 Time, averments as to, rule of proof fur, 
 298. 
 
 Time of an ofi'ence must be specified in 
 the charge, 57, 58. 
 
 Time of assembling a court-martial, 83. 
 
 Time of attendance of members of courts- 
 martial, how certified, 202. 
 
 Time of imprisonment, how calculated. 
 169. 
 
 Treason, what constitutes, 334. 
 
 Trenor, Captain, charge and specifications 
 against, 58. 
 
 Trial before court-martial, 59-67 ; appli- 
 cation for delay or postponement of, 87- 
 94; pleas in bar of, 96-108. special 
 pleas in bar of 97 ; invahd pleas in 
 bar of, 100 ; incidents of the, 88-124 ; 
 how opened by the judge advocate. 
 109; new, when granted, 148-150. 
 
 Trial of officers, extracts from act of Con- 
 gress relating to, 359. 
 
 Trials, extract from a general order in re- 
 lation to, 90. 
 
 Trials, several, court to be sworn at the 
 commencement of each, 93. 
 
 T3-tlcr on the duties of a judge advocate, 
 200. 
 
 Understanding, defect of, renders a wit- 
 ness incompetent, 227. 
 
 Van Bokkehn, Captain, case of, 99. 
 
 Veracity of witncsftes, proof of, 314. 
 
 Verbal declarations, how far admissible 
 in evidence, 252. 
 
 Verdict of a court-martial, 1 29 ; special, 
 129; cases in illustration of, 129-132. 
 
 Verdict, separate, one of several defend- 
 ants may be rendered competent as a 
 witness by, 237- case in illustration, 
 on the authority of Lord Erskine, 237. 
 
 Voir dire, examination of a witness upon 
 the, when his competency is objected 
 to, 303, 304. 
 
 Votes at the finding, memorandum of, 
 
[XDEX. 
 
 377 
 
 must be destroyed, 121, majority of, 
 determine acquittal or conviction, 128, 
 137 , how submitted to the court, 136. 
 
 Votes, question- in courts-martial decided 
 by a majority of, 84 ; wlicn equally di- 
 vided acquit the prisoner, 129 ; to de- 
 cide punishment, 140. 
 
 Voting at the finding by a court-martial, 
 126. 
 
 "Waiving plea in bar of trial, by iho ac- 
 cused, 106. 
 
 Walker, William, decision of the Supreme 
 Court of Massachusetts in the case of, 
 34 ; tried by court-martial after expi- 
 ration of his term of service, 35. 
 
 Want of specification as a plea in bar of 
 trial, 106, 107. 
 
 Warrant for assembling a court-martial 
 by whom issued, 18. 
 
 Wellington, Duke of, martial law defined 
 by, 10; martial law as administered 
 by, 11. 
 
 Wliistler, Major, opinion of the attorney- 
 general on the case of, 153. 
 
 Wife, testimony of, for or against her hus- 
 band, when not admitted, 239-241; 
 ■when admitted, 241. 
 
 WQliamson, Peter, case of, 143. 
 
 Will, vicious, necessary to coustitute a 
 crime, 117. 
 
 Wirt, Attorney-General, opinion of, on the 
 power of the secretary of war to con- 
 vene general courts-martial, 10; opin- 
 ion of, in relation to former arrest as 
 a bar of trial, 100 ; opmiou of, in rela- 
 tion to prisoner's waiving his plea in 
 bar of trial, 106; opinion of, in relation 
 to the power of the President to grant 
 a new trial, 149; opinion of, in rela- 
 tion to the power of tlie President to 
 mitigate piuiishment, 155. 
 
 Witness, form of oath taken by, 80; sworn 
 by the judge advocate, 80 ; liable to ar- 
 rest on refusing to be sworn, 80 ; sworn 
 but once, 81 ; delay of trial for absence 
 of, 87 ; objection to competency of, 
 when to be made, 109 ; must be sworn 
 by the judge advocate, 1 09 ; how ex- 
 amined, 1 09 ; may refer to a memo- 
 randum of facts, 110,309; illness of. 
 
 110; deposition of may be taken when 
 a civilian, HI; compulsory attendance 
 of, 111; questions to, 112; question 
 put to, by the court, 113; examination 
 of, 113 ; may explain his evidence, 113 ; 
 record of his evidence may be read to 
 him before ho leaves the court, 114; 
 may be subjected to cross-exammation, 
 114. 
 
 Witnesses, list of, to be given to a pris- 
 oner, 63, 65 ; provision as to summon- 
 ing, 64; when called in, 108; recall 
 of, 124; improper conduct of, 134; 
 courts of inquiry have power to sum- 
 mon, 182; boards for retiring dis- 
 abled officers may simimon, 188; in- 
 competency of, 226-235; incompetency 
 of, from defect of religious principle, 
 230 ; not Christians, may bo admitted, 
 231 ; negroes as, 248-251 ; slaves can- 
 not be, 250; examination of, 300-306; 
 cross-examination of, 306-308 ; re- 
 examination of, 308; privilege of, m re- 
 fusing to answer, 310-314 ; credibility 
 of, how impeached, 315; contradiction 
 of, by party calling, 316, belief of. re- 
 ceivable in evidence, 316 ; opinions of, 
 317; conflicting testimony of, 319. 
 
 Wording of a sentence should be clear, 
 140. 
 
 Written declarations, how far admissible 
 in evidence, 252. 
 
 Written evidence, 224. 
 
 A\^ritten instruments, contents of, how 
 proved, 268 • not necessary to prove 
 that a person acts in a pubhc capacity, 
 274; when in possession of the ad- 
 verso party, 275. 
 
 Writings, ancient, value of, in establish- 
 ing identity of handwriting, 273. 
 
 Writings, destroyed, secondary evidence 
 admissible of, 278. 
 
 Writings relating to a conspiracy, when 
 admissible in evidence, 290. 
 
 Wrongs, history of the article of war in 
 relation to, 172; nature of, referred to 
 in the 35th article of war, 173 ; redress 
 for, how to be obtained, 174. 
 
 Wrongs of officers, redress for, 170; of 
 non-commissioned officers and soldiers, 
 redress for, 172. 
 
D. Van N'ostrand''s Puhlkations. 
 
 Scott's Military Dictionary. 
 
 ComprLsing Technical Defiiiiiious; lufornuitioii ou Kuising and 
 Keeping Troops ; Actual Service, including makeshifts and 
 improved materiel, and Law, Government, Regulation, and 
 Administration relating to Land Forces. By Colonel H. L. 
 Scott, Inspector-General U. S. A. 1 vol., large octavo, fully 
 illustrated, half morocco. §5. 
 
 of Military Science."— Phihiddphia Eien- 
 logitiinate praise of this work." — Kationul 
 
 '• It is a complete Encycluj);v( 
 ing Bull I tin. 
 
 '•We oaiinot speak too much 
 JiiteUi(/eiicer. 
 
 '■ It sho'ihl be made a Text-book lor the study of every Volunteer."— //(//•- 
 prr'ti Jluycizine. 
 
 " We cordially comir.end it to public favor." — Wai>?iington Glohe. 
 
 "Tills comprehensive and skilfully prepared work supplies a want that has 
 lont; been felt, and will be peculi.arly valuable at this time as a book of refer- 
 ence " — BoxtoH Comiiiercial Bulletin. 
 
 "The Military Dictionary is splendidly got up in every way, and reflects 
 credit on the publisher. The oUicers of every company in the service should 
 possess it."— jN'. 1'- Tahlet. 
 
 "The work is mo -e properly a Military Encyclopa?dia, and is profusely illus- 
 trated with engravings. It appears to contain every thing that can be wanted 
 in the shape of information by officers of all grades." — Philadelphia North 
 American. 
 
 "This book is really an T^iryr! .;! i !i i. 1 ill, .lementary and te'chnical, and 
 as such occupies a gap iu Mich has long been mo.-t incon- 
 
 veniently vacant. Thisli' I 'pular want, and will bo secured 
 
 niit only by those embarkin . ii i .' i: I i- i '■ )t by a great number of civilians, 
 who are determined to follou- the <le>eripti()iis and to understand the philo.-o- 
 phy of the various movements of the campaign. Indeed, no tolerably good 
 library would be compl -te without the work." — Xric York Tinwu. 
 
 "The work has evidently been compiled from a careful consultation of the 
 best authorities, enriched with the results of the experience and perso al 
 knowledge of the author."— iV. Y Daily Tribune. 
 
 " Works like the present are Invalu.iblft. The officers nf our VoluntcT ser- 
 vice would all do well to possess themselves of the \olume." — ^V, Y. Herald. 
 
 New Bayonet Exercise. 
 
 A New Manual of the Bayonet, for tlie Army and Militia of the L'^nited 
 States. By Colonel J. C. Kklto.v, U. S. A. With thirty 
 beautifully-engraved plates. Red cloth. §;1.7o. 
 
 This Manual was prepared for the use of the Corps of Cadets, and has been 
 introdueed at the Military .Academy with satisfaetoy result.s. It is simply ihe 
 theory of the attack anddefence of the sword applied to the bayonet, on the 
 autliority of men skilled in the use of arms. 
 
 The -Manual contains practical lessons in Foncinsr, and prescribes the de- 
 fence against Cavalry and the manner of conducting a contest with a Swords- 
 man. 
 
 "This work merits a favorable reception at the hands of all military men. 
 It contains all the instruction necessary to enable an oflicer to drill his men in 
 the use of this weapon. The introiluction of the Sabre Bayonet in our Army 
 renders a knowledge of the exercise more imperative." — iVtto York Times. 
 
J). Van Nostrand'' s Publications. 
 
 Rifles and Rifle Practice. 
 
 An Elementary Treatise on tlio Tlieorj- of Ritle Firing ; explain- 
 ing the causes of Inaccuiacy of Fire and the manner of cor- 
 recting it; with descriptions of the Infantry Rifles of Europe 
 and the United States, their Balls and Cartridges. By Capt. 
 C. M. Wilcox, TJ. S. A. New edition, with engravings and 
 cuts. Green cloth. §;1.7o. 
 
 "Although eminently a scientific work, Sfiecial care seems to have been 
 taken to avoid the use of technical terms, and to make the whole subject readily 
 comprehensible to the practical enquirer. It was designed chieHy for the 
 use of Volunteers and Militia; but the War Department has evinced its ap- 
 proval of its merits by ordering from the publisher one thousand copies, for the 
 use of the United States Army:'— Louisville Journal. 
 
 "The book will be found intensely interesting to all who are watching the 
 changes in the art of war arising from the introduction of the new rifled arms. 
 We recommend to our readers to buy the book.'''-— JHUtary Gazette. 
 
 '■ A most valuable treatise."— A'ew York Ilerald. 
 
 "This book is quite original in its character. That character is complete- 
 ness. It renders a study of most of the works on the rifle that have been 
 published quite unnecessary. We cordially recommend the book." — United 
 Service Gazette, London. 
 
 "The work being in all its parts derived from the best sources, is of the 
 highest authority, and will be accepted as the standard on the subject of which 
 it treats."— AV.z« Yorker. 
 
 Army Officer's Pocket Companion. 
 
 Principally designed for Staff Officers in the Field. Partly trans- 
 lated from the French of M. de Rouvre, Lieutenant-Colonel 
 of the French Staff Corps, with Additions from Standard Amer- 
 ican, French, and English Authorities. By Wm. P. Craiohill, 
 First Lieutenant U. S. Corps of Engineers, Assist. Prof, of 
 Engineering at the U. S. Military Academy, West Point. 
 1 vol. 18mo. Full roan. $1.50. 
 
 " I have carefully examined Capt. Craighill's Pocket Companion. I find 
 it one of the very best works of the kind I have ever seen. Any .\rmy or 
 Volunteer officer who will make himself acquainted with the contents of this 
 little book, will seldom be ignorant of his duties in camp or field." 
 
 11. W. IIALLFXK, 
 Major-General U. S. A. 
 " I have carefully examined the ' Manu.i! for St:ilf OlUccrs in the Field." It 
 is a mo.sl invaluabje work, admirable in arranL'ement, perspicuously written, 
 abounding in most useful matters, and such a book as should be the constant 
 pocket companion of every armv officer. Regular and Volunteer." 
 
 G. W. CULLUM, 
 Brig.idior-General U. S. A. 
 Chief of General Halleek's St.-iff, 
 Chef Engineer Department Mississipjn. 
 "This little volume contains a large amount of indispensable Information 
 relitins to otticers" duties in the siege, camp, apd fiild. and will prove to them 
 a iiio-t valuaMe iiocket companion. It is illustrated with plans and drawings." 
 — Botston Com. Bulletin. 
 
D. Van Nostrand^s Publications. 
 
 A Treatifc on Ordnance and Naval 
 Gunnery. 
 
 Compiled and arraiiu'od as a Text-Book for the U. S. Naval Acad- 
 emy, by Lieutenant Edward Simpson, IT. S. N. Second edi- 
 tion, revised and enlarged. 1 vol. 8vo, plates and cuts, half 
 morocco. $1. 
 
 ".Vs tlie coinpilor lias cliar!;c of tlio iiiPtniotion in Naval Gunnery at tho 
 Naval Acaiieiny, his woi k, in the c()in|)ilation of which he has Cdnsultod a larjre 
 number of eminent authorilit's, is probably well suited for tlie)iurp()se<iesi!.'ned 
 by it— namely, the lirciilation of information which many ollieers, owin? to 
 ci)nst;xnt service afloat, may not have been able to collect, "in simple and plain 
 lansuaireit pives instruction as to cannon, o:un carriages, crun powder, projectiles, 
 fuzes, locks, and i)iimers; the theory ofpointinfr sruns, rifles, the practice of 
 ^iUuu'Ty, and a great vaiirty of other siiii lar matters, interesting to fighting 
 men on sea and land." — W anhington Daily Globe. 
 
 " A vast amount of inform.ation is conveyed in a readable and familiar form. 
 The illustrations are c.Ncellent, and many of them unique, being colored or 
 bionz d so as lo represent various military arms, &c., with more than photo- 
 graphic literalness." — Washington Star. 
 
 "It 13 scarcely necessary for us to say that a work prepared by a writer .so 
 practically conversant with all the subjects of which he treats, and who has such 
 a reputation for scientific ability, cannot fail to take at once a high place among 
 the text-books of our naval .service. It lias been approved by the Secretary of 
 the Nrtvy, and will henceforth be one of the .standard authorities on all matters 
 connected with Naval Gunnery.'" — Keic York Herdld. 
 
 "The book itself is admirably arranged, char.acterized by great simplicity 
 and clearness, and certainly at this time will be a most valuable one to officers 
 of the Navy.'' — Bonion Coini/iercial BuUetin. 
 
 "Originally designed as a text-book, it is now enlarged, and so far modified 
 in its plan as to make it an invaluable hand-book for the naval oflicer. It is 
 comprehensive— preserving the creain of many of the best books on ordnance 
 and naval gunnery, and is printed and illustrated in the most admirable man- 
 ner."— .A'eic York World. 
 
 Elementary Inftruction in Naval 
 Ordnance and Gunnery. 
 
 By James II. Warp, Commander U. S. Xavy, Author of " X.ival 
 Tactics," and "Steam for the Million." New edition, revised 
 and enlarged. 8vo. Cloth, §2. 
 
 " It conveys an amonnt of information in the same space to be found no- 
 w hero else, and given with a clearness which renders it useful as well to tho 
 general as the professional inquirer." — N. Y. Evening Post. 
 
 " This volnme is a standard treatise upon the subject to which it is devoted. 
 It abounds in valuable information upon all the jioints bearing upon Naval 
 Gunnery."— Al Y. Commercial A'Jver(i.ier. 
 
 "Tho work is an exceedingly valuable one, and 
 Boston Journal. 
 
 jpportunely issued.' 
 
12 D. Van NostramVs Publications. 
 
 Notes on Sea-Coafl: Defence : 
 
 Consisting of Sea-Coast Fortification ; the Fifteen-Inch Gun ; and 
 Casemate Embrasures, By Gen. J. G. Barnard, Corps of 
 Engineers, U. S. Army. 1 vol. 8vo, cloth, plates. $1 50. 
 
 "This small volume by one of the most accomplished officers in the United 
 States service is especially valuable at this time. Concisely and thonuifrhlv 
 Major Barnard discusses tlie subjects included in this volume, and eives infof- 
 m.lion that will be rend with great profit by military men, and by all interested 
 in the art of war as a defensive foi-ce'"— iVe«c York Commercial. 
 
 " It is no lisrht compliment when we say that Major Barnard's book docs no 
 discredit to the corps to which he belonss. He writes conciselv, and with a 
 thorough knowledj,'e of his subject."— /?u*'.v<'/rs Ar^ny and Nary Gazette. 
 
 Inftructions for Nav^al Light 
 Artillery, 
 
 Afloat and Ashore. By Liont. S. B. LrcE, U. S. N". 1 vol. 8to, 
 with 22 lithographic plates. In Press. 
 
 Steam for the Million. 
 
 A Popular Treatise on Steam and its Application to the U.«cful 
 
 Arts, especially to Navigation. By J. H. Ward, Commander 
 
 IT. S. Navy. New and revised edition. 1 vol. 8vo, cloth. 
 
 "A most excellent work for the young engineer and general reader. Many 
 facts relating to 1 he management of the boilei- and engine are set forth with a 
 simplicity of language, and perfection of detail, that brings the subject home to 
 the reader. Mr. Ward is alsj peculiarly happy in his illustrations."— .^me/'ica?* 
 £ngiiieer. 
 
 Screw Propulfion. 
 
 Notes on Screw Propulsion, its Rise and History. By Capt. W. H. 
 Walker, U. S. Navy. 1 vol. 8vo., cloth. 75 cents. 
 
 Some interesting notes 
 been issued by (.'ouimande 
 likely to be desired on the subject maybe readily acquired. • « * * After 
 thoroughly demonstrating the'efficiency of the screw, Mr. Walker, proceeds to 
 point out the various other points to be attended to in order to secure an effi- 
 cient man-of-war. and eulogizes throughout the readiness of the British Admi- 
 ralty to test every novelty caUulated to give satisfactory results. • * * * 
 Conimander Walker's book contains an immense amount of concise practical 
 data, and every item of information recorded fully proves that the various 
 points bearing upon it have been well considered previously to expressing an 
 opinion."— io«rfo» Mining Journal. 
 
 " Every engineer should have it in his library." — American Engineer. 
 
D. V 
 
 JVbstrand^s JPublications. 
 
 Hand- Book of Artillery, 
 
 For the Service of the United States Army and Militia. New and 
 
 revised edition. By Maj. Joseph KoiiKRTS, U. S. A. 1 vol. 
 
 18mo, cloth flexible. 75 cents. 
 
 " A complete catechism of pun practice, covering the ■whole ground of this 
 branch of military science, and adapted to militia and volunteer drill, as well as 
 to tlie regular army. It has the merit of precise detail, even to the technical 
 names of all parts of a gun, and how the sm.allest operations connected with its 
 use can be best performed. It h;is evidently been prepared with great care, 
 and with strict scientific accuracy. By the recommendation of a committee 
 appointed bv the commanding officer of ♦,>ie Artillery School at Fort Monroe, 
 Va., it has been substituted for ' Burns' Questions and Answers,' an English 
 work which has heretofore been the text-book of instruction in this country." 
 — A'ew York Century. 
 
 New Infantry Tactics, 
 
 For the Instruction, Exercise, and Manoeuvres of the Soldier, a Com- 
 pan}'. Line of Skirmishers, Battalion, Brigade, or Corps d'Armee. 
 By Brig. -Gen. Silas Casev, U. S. A. 3 vols. 2-lnio. Half roan, 
 lithographed plates. $2.50. 
 Vol. I. — School of the Soldier ; School of the Company ; In- 
 struction for Skirmi.shers. 
 Vol. II.— School of the Battalion. 
 
 Vol. III. — Evolutions of a Brigade ; Evolutions of a Corps 
 d'Armee. 
 
 The manuscript of this new system of Infantry Tactics was carefully ex- 
 amined by General McClei.lan, and met with his unqualitied approval, which 
 he has since manifested by authorizing General Casey to adopt it for his entire 
 division. The author has retained much that is valuable contained in the sys- 
 tems of Scott and Hardee, but has made many important changes and addi- 
 tions which experience and the exigencies of the service require. General 
 Casey's reputation as an accomplished soldier and skilful tactician is a guar- 
 antee that the work he has undertaken has been thoroughly performed. 
 
 "These volumes are ba-^ed on the French ordonnances of 1S31 and 1845 for 
 the niancDUvrcs of heavy infantry and channeura d pied ; both of these systems 
 have beun in u.se in our service for some years, the former having been trans- 
 lated by Gen. Scott, and the latter by Col. Hardee. After the introduction of 
 the latter drill in our service, in connection with Gen. Scott's Tactics, there 
 arose the necessity of a uniform system for the manfeuvres of all the infantry 
 arm of the service. The.se volumes are the result of the author's endeavor to 
 communicate the instruction, now used and adopted in the army, to achieve 
 this result." — Boston Journal. 
 
 " Based on the best precedents, adopted to the novel requirements of the art 
 of war, and very full in its instructions, Casey's Tactics will be received as the 
 most useful and most comprehensive work of its kind in our lansuago. From 
 the drill and discipline of the individual soldier, or through all the various 
 combinations, to the manceuvres of a brigade and the evolutions of a Corps 
 D'Armee, the student is advanced by a clear method and steady progress. Nu- 
 merous cuts, plans, and diagrams illustrate positions and movements, and de- 
 monstrate to the eye the exact working out of the individual position, brigading, 
 order of battle, &.C, &c The work is a model of publishing success, being Ui 
 three neat pocket yo\umes."—yew Yorker. 
 
D. Yan NostrancVs Publications. 
 
 Evolutions of Field Batteries of 
 
 Artillery. 
 
 Translated from the French, and arranged for the Army and Militia 
 of the United States. By Gen. Robert Anderson, U. S. Army. 
 Published by order of the War Department. 1 vol. cloth, 32 
 plates. $1. 
 
 War Department, JWw. 2d, 1859. 
 The System of "Evolutions of Field Batteries," translated from the French, 
 and un-LUiired for the service of the United States, by Major Eobert Anderson, 
 of the l>t i;esiiiient of Artillery, having been approved by the President, is 
 published fir thL- information and government of the army. 
 
 All EviiUitions of Field Batteries not embraced in this system are prohibited, 
 and those herein prescribed will be strictly observed. 
 
 ■j. B. FLOYD, Secretary of War. 
 "This system having been adopted by the War Department, is to the artil- 
 lerist wh.at llurdee's Tactics is to the infantry soldier; the want of a work like 
 this has been seriously felt, and will be eagerly welcomed."— ZowMwWe Jownal. 
 
 Hiftory of the United States Naval 
 Academy, 
 
 With Biographical Sketches, and the names of all the Superintendents, 
 Professors and Graduates, to which is added a Record of some 
 of the earhest Votes by CongTess, of Thanks, Medals and Swords 
 to Naval Officers. By Edward Ciiauxcet Marshall, A. M., 
 formerly Instructor in Captain Kinsley's }*Iilitarr School at West 
 Point, Assistant Professor in the N. Y. University, etc. 
 
 Ordnance and Gunnery. 
 
 A Course of Instruction in Ordnance and Gunnery. Compiled for 
 the Use of the Cadets of the United States Military Academy. 
 By Captain J. G. Benton, Ordnance Department U. S. A., late 
 Instructor of Ordnance and the Science of Gunnery, U. S. Mili- 
 tary Academy, West Point, and First Assistant to the Chief 
 of Ordnance, U. S. A. Second edition, revised and enlarged. 
 1 vol. 8vo, half morocco, $4. 
 
 Capt. Benton hiis carefully revised and corrected this valuable work on Ord- 
 nance and Gunnery, the first edition of which was published only about a year 
 ago. The many important improvements introduced in this branch of the service 
 have rendered such a revision neces.sary. The present edition will be invalua- 
 ble, not only to the student, but as a standard book of reference on the subject 
 of which it treats. 
 
 I 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WIUL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO R^URN 
 Tms BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 MAR ^a 1^^^ 
 
 _iiOV_4_!?^ 
 
 SENT ON !» 
 
 FCD 1 ' 
 
 r^f),. ; ^■■'^^'%>'" 
 
 mi e 
 
 i255X 
 
 ^h-er 
 
 ^iMar'SePTL^ 
 
 TOHTOHSB^ 
 
 
 r 
 
YD 005P3 
 
 ^x.^\ 
 
 „nivi«w?S 
 
 RMI> 
 
 > -l^^^^^^■'^'' 
 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
>*^- 
 
 ::^: