National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1885-11-10


of their client. The charges
and specifications were nebulously vague,
as unlike as possible to an indictment in the
ordinary criminal court. What particular
law he had violated, when and how he had
violated It, We're not stated. lie was ar
raigned and a drag-net was spread to find
something on which conviction might
possibly be predicated. Against this mani
fest injustice his distinguished counsel pro-
tested and inveighed.
II their argument failed to exert due in
fuence in the Navy Department, II was evil
IDENTIFY weighed by the judge advocate gen
eral Of the army. Hence his movement to
strike out irrelevant matter and make the
military code clear and specific.
Another important suggestion Of Gen.
Leiber relates to the conduct of trials by
court-martial. lie says 1t "has become the
recognized right Of the accused to be repre-
sented by counsel before a court-martial,
and when so represented the prosecution is
apt to be conducted with an amount of in
tCrest which must unfit the prosecutor for
any other relationship to the court.n This
is plain statement Of q patent fact. "Yet,"
continues the Judge advocate general, sun
der our system, the judge advocate, besides
being the prosecutor for the government,
is the recorder and the legal adviser of the
court. These functions are apt to be irre-
concilable with that of prosecutor, as is
also his relation TO the accused" For these
reasons 1t is recommended that 'the Judge
advocate be excluded from the secret scs-
sions of the court, where the accused is un-
represented, for here lie may, by word, or
the infection Of word, or by GESTURE
even, unwittingly influence its Judgment
to say nothing Of possible suppressed fact
or false expression"
II is almost marvellous that this outrage
has been tolerated TO the present time, and
1t will be disgraceful to Congress and the
country II it is permitted to continue longer.
No civil court on the globe would permit II
practice analogous to this in the trial OF q
cause involving the property, reputation,
liberty, or life Of the humblest or the vilest
man.
II John Smith were on trial for stealing
ham, the prosecutor could make no state
ment to judge or jury except in open court.
Any violation OF the defendants rights In
this regard would be held as sufficient
ground for setting aside n verdict. But the
Oldest, bravest, aud best officers of the army
and navy may be put on trial on accusations
involving ali the interests of life, or even
life itself, and be compelled to have the
prosecutor closeted with the members of
the court and using all the facilities Incl
dent to intimate relations to neutralize or
Offset the efforts of the defense.
To speak of this practice as an outrage Is
to give 1t too mild Characterization. 1t
is infamous. II is clear denial of natural
rights and, as such, is utterly indefensble.
By going into the military or naval service
of their country men do not forfeit or sur
render those rights which are the indispen-
sable safeguards of honor. If Congress can
not speedily find way to reform this
shameful abuse 1t will disappoint the just
expectations Of the people.
Except In time Of actual war only such
oourtsmartial should be held as are abso-
lutely necessary for discipline. Many of
the cases now tried by courts-martial should
be left to the civil courts. And no effort
should be spared to bring the modes of
procedure before military tribunals into
harmony with those principles and prac-
ices which experience has shown to be
necessary in the administration of justice
by civil courts.
There are but two kinds OF courts-mar-
tial with which the general public has much
familiarity-one is organized to convict, the
other to condemn one is the minister OF
hate, the other is the dispenser of white
wash. We do not say that there are no
couits-martial in which honest inquiry, fair
methods, and just findings are certain to
obtain. There may have been and may yet
he many such, but those which have at
tracted general attention have not been of
this character.
One of the objections to these tribunals
is the power welded by the civil head of the
army or navy. II Secretary of War or
officer disgraced he can exert very power
full influence In that direction. lie can put
on the court which is to try the officer on
vague, indefinite, or trumped-up charges the
men most likely 10 understand and crafty
his desire, He has pleasant details and
many other favors to dispense. 1t pays to
court his favor. The selection Of the men
who are to act as judges and iurymen Is O
tremendous responsibility that ought not to
be lodged in the hands Of any one man.
1t is as easy to organize a whitewashing
arrangement MS the reverse. An Officer
who is pet Of the department will seldom
be In any danger Of arraignment, but II he
is unexpectedly brought up for trial his
friends may ! ossibly bring him out tri
Umphantly, no matter what the evidence
may be.
We DO not make these comments us par
ticularly applicable to any period ltlsnot
cur intention to charge favUritism or injus
tice on either Of the present heads Of de,
paitm1nts. 1t Is the system, not indiyid
uCls, against which we are contending-i
system that affords unlimited possibilities
for wrongdoiDg, and which is deficient IL
tie ordinary requirements Of iustice-a sys
ton so bad that II needs reforming al
through and all over.
Complaints have been frequently and, We
have no doubt, justly made that the find
iDgs Of courts-martial, especially In the
navy, are much more severe in the cases OF
enlisted men than In those Of commissioned
officers.
1t is a singular fact that the military and