Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1872-09-09

wan DrPARrNysr,j
ADiUrANr GENEaAL's OTTiia,
WAshtNuroF, AuEuIt ~, 1872,
The opinion Of tho Judge Advocate General
upon tho following questions Is approved aud
published for the Information and guidance VI
all concerned:
QUESTIONS.
First. Can Court Martial he recDnyenet and
directed to reconsider lie decision upon an INFER.
i0cuofy qutHf0hf
Second. H. On the objection Of the Judge Adj.
vogate, Court Martial has refused to pefiuit a
certain question to be put by the accused to a
witness, On cross.eNamihatlOn, and IT, In the
opinion Of the reviewing authority, the court
,so,Iiy drn u '1 lS s, can me T9vloWng az
inHs and lta decision Aud n tho Court shall
reconsider lts decision upon the question Of eyi-
denee' can tho accused be permitted IN tina!
take the testimony Of tho witness IN reply there.
TO Or would such action vitiate the proceed.
lngs' Does the rule laid down by DE Hart D.
2OI, and Benet y. iIO, apply In this case
OPtNtON
Upon the general question submitted De
Hart, p. ~, uses the following language;
To Revise the proceedings H. ~ the term itself
imports, 10 To-eNAmine, or to look over again
what has been done, aud therefore would signify
that nothing else Is meant than mere recon.
stderatsoH OF the opinions finding, and Sentence,
which have boon already pronounced; and &C
c1rdlngly the fundamental rule " he observed
Is that upon rrristoH, no additional evidence
Gan be taken, but that the recorded testimony,
as II stands, must be the sole basis for the iudg.
ment Of the court Were not this rule strictly
observed, II would he tantamOunt to opening tho
trial de moro, and amer the prisoner had disclosed
his defense. To permit tho denomination VI q
witness previously called, for explanation syon,
would Induce the necoss ~ Of permitting cross.
examination by party, which might involve
new matter, aud thus run ihiO q prolonged In
Vestgatlpn,'
Bcnst holds Tage III, that
mo witnoHs shall DO examined nor additional
evidence received by a Court Martial on revision
The court does not rehear the case, but confines
itseli exclusively To reconsideration VI the lie.
cord lrr the purpose OF CORE citing or modifying
any conclusions thereon, and Weighing with I'm.
Partially tho suggestions made by the review.
Ing authority"
full scope would necessarily negative the ques.
tons submitted. Upon careful consideration
Of their merits, and the Interests Involved In
their disposition, this Bureau IL inclined to dis
sent from the broad principle which would serve
To so restrict Cuurts-maFtlal rs often 70 defeat
the ends uf Justice.
Upon the familiar principle that every wrong
has Its Temety II Il conceived that, through the
simple aud direct agency Of the reviewing au.
thurlty, Court may properly be called upon to
reconsider Its action In a case like the one pre-.
sonted.
This view Is strengthened by tho practice
prevalent IN the British service. In the
Manual Of Military Law" BY Colonel j. X.
PipOn, Assistant Adlutant Honeral At Head
quarters, the publication OF which Is under the
sanction II Tue General Uommr ding In. q thief
of the British forces, the following rule Is laid
down: "No additional evidence, except ne to
character, can be received on the revision, but
former witnesses may be recalled"
u Is the opinion, then, Of this Bureau that,
whom court has erred ln lie rulings 10 the re-.
lection Of witness for supposed incOmpstency,
or In rejecting offered documentary evidence, or
IN not permitting proper and legal question To
be put TO witness, the reviewing authority
should rocOnyene the Court for FocOnsldeTa.
tiou Of lts action, with suggestions for lts Euld
Ance, and that the Court may thersupOn, should
Il concur In the views submitted, proceed to