The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-05-25

rigntS WHICH nave Oeen secured 10 them by their
ancient charters. And they would be unworthy
OF the name Of freemen and American citizens
were they pAssively to submit to it.
Cases OF the Retired Naval Odicers-IilogaI
Action OF the New Courts Of Inquiry.
We were the first to den0unce the unjust, Op-
pressive and unconstitutional provisions of the
act constituting the Naval Retiring Board, and
we regret to be compelled to assume the same
priority in condemning the construction put by
the new Naval Courts of Inquiry on the intent
and meaning Of the act passed to remedy the uu-
fortunate results Of that measure. It would SEEM
indeed, as if all the efforts to introduce reform
into this branch of the public service were des.
tined only to render the existing condition of
things worse, and to excite general discomfort
and disgust amongst Its members Up to the
present moment the only feature in connection
with the new courts which appears to have given
satisfaction to the retired officers and their friends
is the length of time consumed in their inquiries
They have been sitting now nearly five months
and as yet they have disposed of only four or five
cases. What commentary upon the indecent
precipitation of the Naval Retiring Board, which
in the course of two or three weeks decided the
fate Of no less than PIT officers!
1t is remarkable that, Notwithstanding the de-
termination evinced by the public to secure fair
play for the officers whose professional character
and conduct form the subjects of inquiry, official
perverseness should in this, as In the former in
vesigation, step in to defeat the objects aimed at
This, too, in defiance of all the principles and
rules of law, Of all recorded naval and mill
tary decisions, and of the plain dictates of JUS
tice and humanity. The policy of the principle
that no man shall be twice punished for the same
offence requires no enforcement at our hands. 1t
is so firmly established in the legal code of every
country which pretends to any sort Of decent
equity in its criminal Jurisprudence that Il would
be superfuous for us to enlarge upon it. In
military legislation this principle has been ac-
knowleged by express enactments, and is sane
toned by numerous decisions In the mill
tary code there is even q rule which pro-
hibits the introduction az evidence of any Of
fence committed more than two years previously.
The justice and expediency of such a restriction
are obvious Under despotic regime like that of
the military eervi:e, no man would be safe unless
some limits were opposed to the power Of his SUI
periors Ills therefore, properly ruled that au
ably exposed to the malice and vindictiveness of
bis enemies.
In their mode Of conducting the present inves-
tigaion the new courts have entirely ignored
these principles. They receive evidence of any
and every offence committed aud punished within
any indefinite period during an officers term
of service. This is manifest violation of duty on
their part; for no instructions that they may have
received ought to override the rules that should
guide them in the discharge of their mi-judicial
functions. Whatever may be Mr.. Cushing's or
Mr.. Dobbin's construction OF the act under which
they sit, they are not bound by that construction
to infringe the rules Of law and the plain iuten-
ton of Congress Their perseverance in such
course will only, rs in the case of the Naval Re-
firing Board, bring their decisions into contempt
and insure their reversal. They may rest
assured, moreover, that q departure from
principle and too blind obednce 10 the
views Of others will react to their own dis
oo'ahsnEt. lucy nnouiu Dc<d III ullllu The Ihte
Of Col. Newman, whose case il recorded in the
London edition Of James Court Martials. That
officer put Captain Halliday a second time on
trial for an offence for which he had been pre-
viously punished. The court refused to entertain
the charge, and on report of the proceedings
being forwarded TO the War Office, the King
George W. ordered the immediate dismissal of
the Colonel from his command with prohibition
against the promotion of the officers of the mess
who had declined associating with Captain Halli-
day on account OF this charge.
II, az we believe, the members of the new
courts are acting under a mistaken impression of
the obligations imposed upon them by the in
structions of Mcssrs. Cushing and Dobbn. il is in.
cumbent on the present Secretary to rectify at
once the errors of his predecessors and TO re-
instruct them as to their duties They should be
directed to ignore altogether the dicta of those
functionaries, so far as they conflict with the
principles of military law and the rules of evil
dence, and to take just and impartial view of
the intent and meaning of the act under which
they sit. Its object il not 10 fall back upon old
offences with view TO vindicstion and twice re-