« AnteriorContinuar »
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-
PORTS AND IN THE LAWYERS REPORTS ANNOTATED
THE LAWYERS CO-OPERATIVE ILLISHING COMPANY
ROCHESTER, N. Y.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year nineteen hundred eight, by
THE LAWYERS CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING CO.,
E. R. ANDREWS PRINTING COMPANY, Rochester, N. Y.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF THAT COURT TO THE BEGINNING OF THE
OCTOBER TERM 1907.
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
L. ed. 1252, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 891-Symonds
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
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
Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 6 Sup. Ct. Organization.
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
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,