Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-11-18
TWO HABEAs CORPUS CASES.
Two Supreme Court Decisions on the
Enlistment Laws,

Two Supreme Court Decisions on the
Enlistment Laws. 2.
In the Supreme Court Of the United States
yesterday Justice Brewer delivered the decis.
ions of the court in two habeas corpus cases
one involving the question whether soldier
who enlisted in the army under age has the
| right to be discharged on the ground that be
enlisted as a minor and the other involving the
right of a soldier who enlisted while over the
age prescribed by law to be discharged because
he enlisted when over age.
In the case Of Frank Morrissey, appellant
agt. Maj. David Perry, from the circuit cour,
Of the eastern district of Missouri, the evidence
showed that Morrissey enlisted in 1888 while a
minor and deserted after serving less than a
month. In 1889, when he became of age, Nor
rlssey reappeared and demanded his discharge
from the army on the ground that he was a
minor when he enlisted. Section l1l7 of the
Revised Statutes provides that mo person nm
DER the age OF twenty-one years shall be en-
listed or mustered into the military service of
the United States without the written consent
OF his parents or guardians provided that such
minor has such parents or guardians"
but this provision says the court in its de-
cision, lis for the benefit Of the parent or
guardian 1t means simply that the govern
ment will not disturb the control OF parent or
guardian over his or her child without consent.
But 1t gives no privilege to the minor The
contract Of enlistment is not one voidabie by
him. In this case the parent never insisted
upon the right Of custody and control, and the
fact that he had mother living at the time is
therefore immateriaL The contract for enlist
ment was good so far as the petitioner was con-
cerned- He was not only de facto but de lure,
u soldier, amenable to military jurisdiction.
His mother not interfering, he was bound
to remain In the service. His assertion and
concealment for five years did not relieve him
from his obligations as soldier or his liability
to military control. The decision of the circuit
court Remaining him to the custody Of the
military authorities was correct and must be
affirmed"
The other case decided was that of tho United
States, appellant, agt. John Grimley. 1t came
to the Supreme Court from the circuit court of
the United States for the district OF Massachu-
sets. Grimley enlisted in the army when forty
years OF age, he representing himself to be
twenty-eight. Section l116 of the Revised
Statutes provides that recruits enlistiug in the
army must be between the ages of sixteen and
thirty five years at the time of their enlist
ment." The United States circuit court for the
district Of Massachusetts, found that Grimley
was forty years OF age at enlistment. and, un-
der section 1116, ruled that the enlistment was
void, that Grimley never became soldier and
was not subject to the jurisdiction of the court
martial which sentenced him for desertion
The Supreme Court reverses the judgment of
the circuit court discharging Grimiey. and re-
mands the case with instructions returning
him to the custody of the military authorities