Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

DIGEST

OF THE

UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

U. S. Vols. 1--206. L. ed. Books 1.-31

APPENDING ALL STATE AND FEDERAL CITATIONS OF EACH DECIDED POINT TO THE STATE-
MENT THEREOF IN THE BODY OF THE DIGEST. CONTAINING REFERENCES ALSO
TO EDITORIAL NOTES IN THE LAWYERS EDITION OF THESE RE.

PORTS AND IN THE LAWYERS REPORTS ANNOTATED

Courts-Martial--Internal Revenue.

THE LAWYERS CO-OPERATIVE ILLISHING COMPANY

ROCHESTER, N. Y.

1908.

[ocr errors]

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year nineteen hundred eight, by

THE LAWYERS CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING CO.,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.
.....

95261

E. R. ANDREWS PRINTING COMPANY, Rochester, N. Y.

DIGEST

OF THE

UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF THAT COURT TO THE BEGINNING OF THE

OCTOBER TERM 1907.

C

COURTS MARTIAL.

2. The rules and articles of war respecting

the number of officers to be convened for 1. In General, 1-13.

courts-martial and the approval of sentence 11. Jurisdiction and Judgment; Pro- by commanding officers are not applicable cedure, 14-69.

to a court-martial convened under the militia a. Jurisdiction, 14-24. b. Sentence or Judgment, 25-38. fact of February 28, 1795, for the trial of

delinquents, since that statute makes the c. Effect and Conclusiveness of rules and articles of war applicable only to Judgment, 39-61.

militia actually employed in the service of d. Procedure, 62-7.

the United States. Martin V. Mott, 12 e. What Precludes Further Pro- Wheat. 19,

6: 537 cedings, 68-9.

Cited in Smith v. Whitney. 116 U. S. 172, 29

L. ed. 602, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570-Swaim v. Jurisdictional Amount on Appeal from De

United States, 165 U. S. 559, 41 L. ed. 825,

17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 448/Mullan v. United cree on Writ of Prohibition to, see Ap

States, 23 Ct. Cl. 40-Ex parte Henderson, peal and Error, 400.

Fed. Cas. No. 6,349—People ex rel. UnderProceedings of, as Evidence, see Evidence, wood v. Daniell, 6 Lans. 48.

1269. Testimony Before, as Evidence, see Evidence. 3. The Secretary of the Navy is author1285.

ized to establish "regulations of the Navy," Secretary of Navy as Party Defendant in with the approval of the President, which

Writ of Prohibition to see Prohibition, regations are the law of a naval court37.

martial. Re Reed, 100 U. S. 13, 25: 538 Matters Relating to Courts in General, see

Cited in Smith v. Whitney. 116 U. S. 181, 29 Courts.

L. ed. 605, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570_United

States v. Symonds, 120 U. S. 50, 30 L. ed. Military Tribunals Generally, see War, VII. 558, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 411—Re Kollock, 165 U.

S536, 41 L. ed. 816, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 444
Glavey v. United States, 182 U. S. 606, 45

L. ed. 1252, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 891-Symonds
I. In General.

v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 151-Re Smith, 23 Ct. Cl. 459-Williams v. United States,

24 Ct. Cl. 316--Laurey v. United States, 32 1. The law governing courts-martial is

Ct. CI. 265--Brown v. United States, 32 Ct. found in the statutory enactments of Con- CI. 386-Re Huttman, 70 Fed. 702-Meads gress, particularly the Articles of War, in v. United States, 26 C. C. A. 239, 54 U. S. the Army Regulations, and in the customary App. 150, 81 Fed. 694-Re Comingore. 96 Military Law. Carter ex rel. Carter v. Mc- Fed. 562-Wilkins v. United States, 37 C. ('laughry, 183 U. S. 365, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. C. A. 592. 96 Fed. 840_United States v. 181,

46: 236 Hardison, 135 Fed. 422-Low v. Hanson, 72 Cited in Re Brodie, 63 C. C. A. 421, 128 Fed.

Me. 105-Peters v. United States, 2 Okla. 608.

123, 33 Pac. 1031.

2399 Editorial note.

though the volunteer troops organized under Naval courts-martial.

12: 618 that act were mustered directly into the Creation generally.

service of the United States without regard See also infra, 57.

to state or territorial lines. McClaughty v.

Deming, 186 U. S. 49, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 786, 4. The power of the President to appoint

46: 1049 a general court-martial is necessarily vested in him as Commander-in-Chief, and is not officers in the Regular Army of the United

10. A court-martial entirely composed of limited to the single case specified in U. S. States, who, by the 77th article of war, are Rev. Stat. § 1342, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. “not competent to sit on courts-martial to 944, in which the commander of an officer try the officers or soldiers of other forces,” charged with an offense is himself the ac. is without jurisdiction to try an officer or cuser or prosecutor. Swaim v. United States, soldier of such other forces when convened 165 U. S. 553, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 448,

for that sole purpose. McClaughry v. Dem41: 823

ing, 186 U. S. 49, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 786, 5. The prohibition against the convocation

46: 1049 of a general court-martial by the commander cited in Brown v. United States, 206 U. S. of a fleet or squadron without the previous

243, 51 L. ed. 1046, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 620. authorization of the President, which is made 11. An officer of the Regular Army is by U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1624, art. 38, U. S. within the provisions of U. S. Rev. Stat. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1102, when such fleet S 1342, art. 77, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901. p. or squadron is “in the waters of the United 959, that "officers of the Regular Army shall States," applies only to those waters which not be competent to sit on courts-martial are within what was termed by the act of to try officers or soldiers of other forces,” March 3, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 1108, chap. although such officer has been granted an 852, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1040), the indefinite leave of absence from the Regular continental limits of the United States. Army in order to enable him to accept a United States v. Smith, 197 U. S. 386, 25 commission in the volunteer forces. United Sup. Ct. Rep. 489,

49: 801 States v. Brown, 206 U. S. 240, 27 Sup. Ct. 6. The commander-in-chief of a squadron

51: 1046

Rep. 620, not operating or stationed in the waters of Control. the United States has the power, without 12. The authority that ordered a courtexpress authority from the President, to martial may direct it to reconsider its proconvene a general court-martial for the trial ceedings and sentence, before the court shall of an officer. Mullan v. United States, 140 have been dissolved. Re Reed, 100 U. S. 13, U. S. 240, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 788, 35: 489

25: 538

Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 6 Sup. Ct. Organization.

Rep. 570,

29: 601 7. Whether the interests of the service cited in Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 186, 29 permit the postponement of the trial of an L. ed. 607, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570—Swaim v. officer of the Navy until a court-martial can United States, 28 Ct. Cl. 235–Eyermann v. be organized of which at least half of its Provenchere, 15 Mo. App. 264. members, exclusive of the President, will be Expiration. his seniors in rank, or require a prompt 13. A court-martial regularly called trial by such officers as can then be assigned under the act of February 28, 1795, providto that duty, is a matter committed to the ing for the calling out of the militia, does not discretion of the commander-in-chief of the expire with the end of a war then existing, squadron which, it will be presumed, in an nor is its jurisdiction to try offenses deaction to recover pay for time succeeding pendent upon the fact of war peace. dismissal from service by judgment of the Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, 6: 537 court-martial, was properly exercised. Mul. lan v. United States, 140 U. S. 240, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 788,

35: 489 11. Jurisdiction and Judgment; Pro

cedure. 8. Consent can confer no jurisdiction on a court-martial composed entirely of officers

a. Jurisdiction. of the Regular Army of the United States in direct violation of the 77th Article of Authority to Convict Army Officer for MisWar, which declares that such officers shall

application of Funds, see Army and not be competent to sit on courts-martial to

Navy, 174.
try the officers or soldiers of other forces. See also supra, 8–10.
McClaughry v. Deming, 186 U. S. 49, 22
Sup. Ct. Rep. 786,

46: 1049

14. A court-martial is a court of special

and limited jurisdiction. The facts neces9. The Volunteer Army of the United sary to show its jurisdiction and that its States raised under the act of Congress of sentence is conformable to law must be March 2, 1899 (30 Stat. at L. 977, chap. stated positively. Runkle v. United States, 352), is "other forces" within the meaning 122 C. S. 543, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1141, of the 77th Article of War, declaring that

30: 1167 "oflicers of the Regular Army shall not be Criticized in Re Chapman, 166 U. S. 670, 41 L. competent to sit on courts-martial to try ed. 1159, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 677. the Ollicers or soldiers of other forces," al. Cited in McClaughry v. Deming, 186 U. S. 62,

or

« AnteriorContinuar »