The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1883-06-10
Restoring Dismissed Officers of the Arm,

The recent review by tho Court OF Claims
Of Mr.. WALKER A. NEwToN's application to
DO restored to the army presents very
strikingly the opinion that prevails in some
quarters OF tho facility with which dropped
officers may BIO reinstated. Mr.. MENTIONS
claim rested. according to the Court, on an
exceedingly slender foundation, and present.
ing 1t at all seems to have been the result OF
belief In view Of the many rcinstatements
under Mr. HAYES and President GRANT. that
every officer who had the least right to be re-
estorcd would be welcomed with open arms.
In July, 1870, Second Lieutenant NEWTON
was ,summarlly dropped for prolonged alb
sence without leave. From that time the
War Department had no official knowledge
OF him until the year 1870 when he turned
up with demand to be put on the rolls and
to draw pay. The basis Of this demand was
q law passed In July, 1866, making the follow
ing provision:
mo ofhcer In the military naval service shall In
time of peace dismissed from the service except upon
and in pursuance Of sentence Of eourt martial to that
effect"
His application to the War Department
was not acted upon, and this fact gave him,
In suit for back pay before the Court OF
Claims. q second ground OF complaint,
namely that court martial was not sum
moned to try him under tho following section
OF the act Of March, 1865:
"when any onicer disniseby order of the President
makes In writing application for trial. setting forth,
under OATH that he has been wrongfully dismissed the
President shall the necessities Of the service
may permit convene court martial to try such officer
the charges on which he shall have been dismissed.
An ~ n nNpt tal d aA uaIw
months from the presentation Of suo application for
trial, the order Of dismissal BY the President
shall be void"
The Court, however, pointed out In Its de-
cision that prior to the dropping Of Lieut.
Newton the act OF 1870 had authorized the
President to drop directly from the army
any officer absent from duty without leave
for three months; and the claimant, when
dropped, had been absent much more than
three months.
The only apparent basis Oh which the
claimants application stood was a confused
codifcation Of the Revised Statutes A law
passed under the plea OF war necessity In
1862 gave the President the right to dismiss
officers as he saw 1T; the law OF March,
1865. restrained this unlimited power, while
that Of 1866 wholly repealed tho act OF 1862
without directly touching that OF 1865 The
persons who arranged the Revised Statutes
put together the acts Of 1870 and 1866 as sec
ton l,229, whilo they retained the restraining
act OF 1865, styling 1t section 1880. OF course,
as the Court said, 1t only needed an examina-
ton OF the dates when these various statutes
were passed to discover that the act OF 1870
made fresh grant ofpower, Independent Of
preceding acts.
But apart from these features OF the case,
Its remarkable element Is the applicants
failure to make his demand for nine years.
During all that time as the Court found, he
did not report himself to the department,
nor did he render or offer to render any
service. He made no claim to tho Office he
had abandoned. or to It's pay. and whatever
the Interpretation to be put upon his original
disappeArance from the service. the Court
found that he had given NO adequate reason