National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-05-09
MAsoN,s PETITION.
II IL Denied by the united states SUI
prenne Court.


A decision in the case ofsorgeant John A. Mason,
upon application for a writ of habeas corpus, was
rendered by the Supreme Court yesterday afer-
noon denying the writ. Tho opinion, which was
delivered by the Chicf-Justice, is as follows:
This was petition for writ Of habeas corpus
TO release Mason, the petitioner, from confnement
In the Albany Penitentary under sentence by
general court. martial. After reviewing the mc1s
Of the case, which are well known, Chief-Justice
Waite, who delivered the opinion OF the court.
said In substances question which presents Itself
at the outset Ia, whether tis court has jurisdiction
TO issue such a writ as is asked. Upon this ques-
ton there is not entire unanimity OF opinion
AMONG the members Of the court, and we purposely
withhold any decision at this time in respect TO II.
We oil agree however that II a writ might issue
there could be no discharge under II, II the court
martial hsd Jurisdiction to try the offender for
the offence with which he was charged, aud the
sentence was one which the court could under tho
law pronounce. The Chief Justice then quoted
The sixty second Article Of War and said that the
ofense charged in this case clearly one TO the
LTcjudlce Of good order and military discipline
The offender was q soldier In the Army OF the
United States. As such, according 10 the specir-
cations. Of the charge mnde against him. he was
ordered on guard duty in the United States Jail In
Washington, and while on duty he wilfully ard
MALiCloUsLY DISCHARGED HIS NUsKEr
with intent to Kill prisoner confined in the jail
u der the authority Of the United States. The
| prnvnmcn 81 the military onense s that while
ssnas slard as soldier over jSi l n whiC ma
inaloluu.y attempted 10 kill the prisoner Shoot
lug with in eut u KIN is civil crime, but shooting
| 10y n solder Of the Army standing guard over
| prison with intent to Nil prisoner confined
therein Is not only crime agalnst society, Tut an
prisoner who was fhst az was not himself con-
neCted with the military service, the soldier who
| fired the shot was on military duty at the time,
| and the shooting was In
DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE ORDERS
under which he was acting. II follows that the
crime charged and for which the trial was had
was not simply an assault with intent to kill but
an assault by soldier Oh duty with intent 10 kill
| prisoner confined in jail over which he was
standing guard, In our opinion the fifty. eighth
ton to the case. The objects and purposes Of the
| hfty-eighth article were deliberately considered
In Coleman vs. Tennessee, "a u g., 800 AZ II Is TO
taycs ON the powers which courts. martial have
under the sixty second article in time Of peace.
1t IS not pretended that any application was ever
Mason TO the civil authorities for trial. SO far as
appeurs the person injured BY the ofeuse commit
by the military tribunal. The choice Of he trlbu-
| nal by which the oeendnr is TO be tried has not
been given 10 him. He has offended both
| AGAINST THE CIVIL AND THE MILITARY LAW.
| As the proper steps were not taken to have him
proceeded against by the civil au horiticS, IL was
| the clear duty of the military to bring him TO
tria, under that Jurisdiction Whether afier Trial
civil courts Is question VIC need not now con-
slider. 1t is enough that the court N artial had
| Jurisdiction To proceed, md that what has been
The next objection that the sentence is in excess
of what the law allows. Under the niney.scventh
Article of War, when the onensc is one not recOg
niztd by the laws regulating civil society, there
can he no punishment by confinement in a
pcnitontiary The same is true when the ofiense,
though recognized by the civil authorities is not
| punishable by the civil courts in that way. But
When the act charged, rs conduct TO the pre-
JUDGE Ofgood order and discipline, is actually
| crime against society which IL punishable by I'm
prsonmcnt in the pellitentiary, II seems TO us
clear that court-martlal Is authorized at its dis
erection 10 inflict that kind OF punishment The
act done is civil crime, and tho trial is for that
act. The proceedings ure had In court martial
| because the offender Is
PERSONALLY AMESABLE TO THAT JURISDICTION,
and what he did was not only criminal according
TO the laws Of the laud but prejudicia TO the good
order and discipline of the Army to which he
belonged The sixtysecond article provides that
the offender when convicted shall be punished at
the discretion ofthe court, and the ninety seventh
article docs no more than prohibit the court nom
sentencing to imprisonment III a penitentiary Ii
cases when, IL the trial had been had for the same
act In tie civil courts, that could not be done.
Is next objected that the sentence is in excess o
the Jurisdiction Of the court, because. in addition
to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the full
term allowed by the laws Of the District of COlum
biH for the ufense of an assault with Intent 70 Kill
II subjects the offender 10 dshonorable discharge
from the Army and q forfeiture Of his pay and OIL.
lowancos. AS has already been said, under the
sixty second article The punishment is to be at the
discretion OF the cour The ninety seventh article
only limits this discretion as TO imprisonment III
the peiiient!ary. and II has been nowhere pro
vided that the punishment may not in other re
II follows that The rule must be discharged, and 4
is SO ordered.