The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-03-17

subject only to such martial law Congress should d
rect as 1t were intended TO govern the individual and
all his acts, free from the civil tribunals which he
would otherwise he amenable Our construction u.s. that
is for the of the army navy entire
subject and in their laval and military character
The right to make rules for their discipline in time OF
peace and proper in conducting operations
in time of war; but not the right TO deprive these members
offorces OF citizenship, and give them an immunity from
all sthsr law bu: that of the military code. Now. whilst
we perfectly agree and in the free spirit of the English
Constitution in the proprety OF erecting all such ribu-
nails as the exgency of war public danger may require
empt them from all authority of the civil power II may
be, we also willing to admit the right of erection of
courts for the punishment of offences committed out Of
the jurisdiction OF the realm and when 1t was impossible
to bring the offender home Vessels, members OF fleet
or alone, on distant seas stations obliged to remain
there for length oftme may require that police
extensive than that for the punishment of disciplinary
offences should be created abroad and then Court Mar
tia should be tolerated. and that from the necessity OF
the case as in time of war public DANGER and coming
clearly within the scope OF the authority OF Congress to
create all tribunals necessary for the maintenance OF the
limits We admit. | will call your Honor's attention
now to the provisions Of the law relative to the
consequences which the opposite doctrines leads
As to the army you will I'd these sectionsfrs the saith
article qth VOL 4l) Relates to good behaviour OF Of
cers and soldiers In garrsons ana provides that besides
the punishment by the civil tribunals, they were also
punishable by Courts Martia This contend recognizes
the principle that members OF the army and navy become
invested with additional liabilities, and subject super
added to the punishment Of the military code TO the civil
tribunals The 33rd and goth sections also cited by
the learned gentleman establishing principle
The distinction recognized in all the sections. The Ian
guage of the Constitution is just as broad with respect to
the army and navy and il ndiv duas in the navy
empt from responsibility to civil tribunals the persons
composing the army must be equally exempt excep in
so far express provision has been made But those
press provisions do not embrace multitude of Offences
some of them capital, and the inference is, the con-
committed by persons in the army and navy must go un
punished But how stands the law with respect to the
Navy NO crime provided Tor exeep. murder and no
the 33rd or last article. Then from what an immense
amount of crime the officers of the navy exempted
will refer however to the last article of the rules for
the navy the $780, I'D Boron, 1861 in which it IS sup
posed there sort OF cure-a for this non-lia-
bilty Well then, they be punished accordng
the Of the sea- Is it custom sea that your
Honor is now acting ONT Is not custom on Ian II
The counsel says that that article was hastily taken in
from the English CODE But is really meant thai the
usages of courts of udisature land customs Of the
sea What are the crimes provided for in this artice3
not the crime of murder provided for When2 When
committed out of the jurisdiction of the United States
courts Those offences within the body OF the coun-
Mr.. Durp-shall explain to you in two words, sir7
OCorrEn-l ask what becomes Of all his argument
about the government OF the navy taking these crimes
out of the power Of the civil tribunalss
Mr. DusR Our view of the provision s that all crimes
not inc uded in the provisions OF the articles committed
in the fleet punishable by courts MARTIAL that crimes
committed within the body of country by persons in
the navy cannot be punished by civil tribunals was
Mr.. OCoNron So much, then for this boosted neces.
sity ofexempng naval officers from all oences,which
even they may commit in places they are liable to
be tried 10y the laws of the States and of parcu
lar State although the act committed the deck Of
avessel of apprehend that the counsel has conce
ded that there is necessity for the exemption against
what have been arguing. And think that he has
conceded also that was vested by the Judicial
in Con gress for the alton of distinct body of men
to he exempted from the authority Of all civil tribunals
The reference to the decision OF Chief Justice Marshall
goes for nothing after this grant he has
ken away good deal OF power Of demonstrating the un-
soundness OF his argument He had admitted the sbi-
ty of icers ofhe navy the civil tribunal but that
when Congress excluded
Courts the Courts Martial have exclusive jurisdiction
Well he has, think, quite broad field
There still very large territory unprovided that is
three miles from the whole shore of the United States
which murder may be committed with impuny by
naval officers Murder being specified, how far is pun
shment prescribed fort The counsel says if with
in the jurisdiction of any particular State it is punish
able by the Civil Courts OF that state But IL without
that jurisdiction, is not punishable unless it comes
under the description OF unoicer like conduct, and if
don't know hut murder will not come TO be
deemed unofhcer.like As to the jurisdiction being
limited to one marine league IRON the shore,
refer to Kents Commentaries 100. But think the
counsel has departed from his whole position by this adj
1t takes away all the ropes and eloquence Of the
speaker because it subjects officers of the navy pun
ishment by civil tribunals for those very offences
which complained OF in the present case Their con-
srnction is however that the word government ap-
plies TO the navy individually contend that tappes
to the navy unit Giving the word their consruc-
ton about to show, would lead to the most mon
srsus consequences ltwoud permit officers OF the ma.
Wy perperats great variety Of offences not provided
for il the naval code. II they are within the Crimes
admiralty aud maritime jurisdiction OF the United States
There is propriety in the case than in the
other But now abandoning that ground, the counsel
seeks except officers in the navy committing an offence
cognzabe by articles Of war; and shpboard and with
out the jurisdiction of the United States This is think
long and witty exception that he charged my
learned associate The word government" is very
broad-open as much used be, to jude ia
construction. They say the army and the navy
ferred to we say the individuals tine army and
navyther conduct members OF society being entirely
under the cognzsnce of the ordinary tribunals We do
nptd nnh hat The nag
sive, to the full extent as respects the discipline
and maintenance of the army and navy Is it to be sup
posed that given in any degree to the civil tribunals
Most certainly not. And this shows that construc-
ton is correct that refers not to individual acts not
authorized by the official capacity and in which cha
racter they violate the known laws of the land but
solely to offences initiating against the discipline and
maintenance Of the servce and also applies to the regu
laon of their action out OF the jurisdiction OF the Une
States where the provisions TOR trial by jury cannot
operate. This gives the right punish any crime with
the territorial limits, where trial by jury may be
given The doctrine originally contended for of this
personal exception, would lead, your Honor will per
ceive, to the most fghtful consequence That would
have been the erection OF standing military desposm
of the most fatal and destructive character The private
citizen would be liable at any time to be trampled under
individuals but the States this would be utterly
destructive. But give to this section even narrow
construction and the whole instrument will be found
consistent with itself and the principles of civil liberty
The counsel called the constitution the last will and
testament OF the founders OF our republic. ms con
will and testament of Amoresn liberty and execut
ed at the hour in its existence before the fire and
smoke the revolution Whoh had been haptsedhad
been swept away But to be told that tn
glory depends the protection afforded TO few naval
officers But the officers, whose names ore EN-
blazoned the record of the early riumphs OF our
republic, the only authors OF that glory ofthe navy,
which we Justly esteem so highly Do those names
present faithful inventory Of the true who then
the national honor on the seas No is
to the gallanthearted seamen, who constituted the
of the navy that indebted for that inherit
lance of fame The officers may perish but their places
readily be supplied but deprive Of the Masses
and navy is annihsted. The idea preached in this
argument about the trial of officer by his peers
somewhat extraordinary. is said that individuals on
land incapable of Judging of the cxigenccs of the
service, That things may happen without proof
" which board Of naval officers feel Now, should
like know how any be convicted in this way
No violence may have been offered received Butthe
officer appear before board of his associates and say
gentlemen prove nothing. True II is have been
subjected to no danger that any body True, was
on board a vessel with some hundred OF no had
.rnln Rnl L alma saw alone