The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1867-03-07

S~s~o~ ..
This relates to crimes known to the com.
mon law, Or declared BY statute and punishar
BILE BY the civil courts. y has no reference
whalsvss 70 military offences. 1his cleuss Of
the Constitution, instead Of being limita-
ton upon the povs1 Of military tribunals,
il an enasrgeuent of their jurisdiction, inas>
much ~ It subjects persons attached 70 the
military service TO trial by court martial for
any crime which they may commit The
common law crime of murder, if committed
by civilian, can only be tried upon irdict-
ment or presentment of grand jury, and BY
. petit jury. For the same crime . soldier
may b tried By court martial. Nov, II =
soldier may ba tried BY eoaFt martil for the
highest grade 81 common lsw crime, must
follow that for every lesser grade Of common
law and statutory crime he may be tried BY
the same tribunal. In this view of the sub.
ject may very well adopt the language OF
the majority Of the court in the Milligan case,
and say that
"The trainers Of the Constitution doubtless
meant 70 limit the right Of trial by jury, in the
sixth amendment to thosvpsrsons who vess sab
ject to Indictment or presentment In the nth
What follows? Why, that persons in>
volved
"In cases arising In the land and naval forces,
In the militia, when in sctusl service in time Of
war or public danger
No matter what the character of the ofense,
and all other persons charged with the com.
mission OF military ofenses, are not entitled
to trial by jury under the sixth amendment,
because those of the first class are expected
from the operation Of the fifth amendment 80
far as it relates to presentment and indict-
ment; and those of the later class are charged
with offenses which have never been subjects
of indictment or presentmentby grand juries.
| The construction of the Constitution removes
| ell danger of conflict between the civil and
military authorities Of the Government
Each have their appropriate sphere, clothed
with ample and perfectly harmonious powers
| to protect the citizen and the nation. A cons
trary construction must render imperative TO
an alarmingly dangerous extent all those
parts of the eight section Of the 6rst article of
the Constitution, which embrace the war
powers of the nation.
| Mr.. Speaker, the views which | have en-
deavored to present are not without support
in former decisions of the Supreme Court.
Section 4 of the act oQ795 declares
"Thst the militia employed 10 the service Of
the United States shall be subject to the same
rules and articles Of var IS the troops ofthe Uni
ted States"
i Upon this statute the Supreme Court, in the
case OF Martin rs. Mott IL Wheaton, 10, FOL.
lowing the case Of Houston rs. Moore,
Wheaton, !, held
Although militisman who refused TO obey the
orders Of the President, calling him into the public
service, was not, in the sense Of the act of 1925
employed In the service OF the United States, sc
as to subjec. him to the Rules and Articles Of Wa
yet he vas liable TO be tried for the ofense un
der the ifth section Of the same set, by cour'
martial called under the authority Of the United
States"
Thus clearly asserting that q person not in
the militaiy service may nevertheless betriec
by q court martial for military offense
But the conrt did not stop here. 1t was urgec
by Mott that
"The proceeding Of the court martial took plse'
and the sentence was given three years and NOR
after the war was concluded and in time Of pro
; found peace"
The court answered the objection in thes,
words:
"The opinion Of the court is that court m ar
cial regularly called under the act Of 1926, doe
not expire with the end Of . war then existing
s its Jurisdiction to try these ofenses ia an.
shape dependent upon the fact Of war or peace
e IL would be . strained
construction Of the act to limit the authority o
D the court 10 the time Of the existence tn
{ particular exigency, when it might be thereby
able TO take cogniIsnce Of and decide upon
, single ofense. II 10 sufficient for us 20 say tina
. there is no such limitation in the act itself
a This case establishes these positions:
. /. A military ofenss can be committed b,
person not ''in the land or naval forces, o
! in the militia, when in actual service in tim,
/ of war or public danger" for such per
sons are subject to the Rules and Articles o
War. and Mott was not
e 2. That such otfenses, though committee
by persons not included in the classes just re
cited, my be tried by q court martial.
, 3. That the jurisdiction of properly con
. stituted court martial does not cease with tn
termination of war, but may continue unit
the case for the trial of which it was organ
! lied can be disposed Of
4. That such jurisdictions does so continu
unless it be limited BY act of Congress. Thi
case and the Milligan case cannot stand TO
gether. The former stands in support O
those powers of the Government upon whic
it must rely for its protection, defence, an
/, maintenance in time of war orpublic danger
! the latter dwarfs these powers, and, If en-
|. forced, would render it impossible for tn
: Government to prosecute q war. The on
. manifests a just appreciation of the distinction
which exists between the civil and the wa
: powers of the nation; the other present
. alarming evidence Of disposition on the par
Of the court to assume coutrel Of powers new
er committed to its jurisdiction. I know c
nothing in the Milligan case which shout
!, stand in the way ofthe triumphant passage Q
this bill.