St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-02-16
INHUMAN ARMY DISCIPLINE.

While it is not the proper thing to en-
courage a spirit of INSTRUMENTATION
among the private soldiers of the regu-
lar army, yet it does become the duty of
the press now and then to call the atten-
ton of the higher authorities to the
abuses that sometimes occur from an
unWarranted exercise of power Oh the
part OF the officers of the army. 1t is
well understood In civilian circles thSt
the regular army shall maintain the
same rigorous discipline in time of
peace as in time of war. But the sup
position is that army discipline shall be
founded upon reason. and shall be
maintained with due regard to the COM
mon instincts of humanity. If the facts
be as reported, and there seems to be
no room to question them, the punish
ment melted out to Private WILD by
court martial, at Fort Yates, and APP
proved by the commanding officer, is not
only repulslve to the American sense
of justice, but is in direct conflict with
both the spirit and letter of the federal
constitution. The charges against Pri-
yate WILD were INSTRUMENTATION and
dlsrespect to q superior officer. The
offense, if the proceedings are reported
correctly, was i'll asserting his right as
an American citizen to be protected
from involuntary seryitude-a cOnstitu
tlonal provision that every person on
American soil has right to avail him.
self OF. What right or power has an
officer of the United States government,
whether in civil or military service, to en-
force compulsory mental service except
as military necessity, and then only in
behalf of the government? The right to
compel soldiers to dig bitches, to throw
up Notifications, OF to perform any
service for the protection or to promote
the welfare Of the government, has
never been denied. But the right
OF an officer to compel a sol
der to perform mental service
for himself is altogether different mat
ter. The officer himself is only serv-
ant OF the government, and consequently
cannot assume unconstitutional powers.
The constitution of the United States
prohibits involuntary servitude in
any and every form. The case in hand
~ e'iesI VI q JUN WIZ w
put up shed in his own back yard for
his own convenience. Instead of doing
it himself, or employing help, he Or
dered one of the soldiers to perform the
work. Tue soldier asserted that he
was in the employ of the government,
and not of an Individual, and refused to
obey the command. If this was breach
of military discipline, then the secretary
of war, the commanding general OF the
armies, or congress should at once
adopt new code of military laws so as
to bring army discipline within the
purView OF the constitution. The sol
der who knew his constitutional rights
better than his superiors was dishoEor-
ably discharged from the service, or
dered to be branded as convict, his
pay and allowance forfeited, and SEN
fenced to hard labor for one year in the
military prison at Fort Smelling. Pos
sibly the severe inhumanity of such
punishment inflicted upon an individual
for asserting his manhood may have
been surpassed in the days of the slave
driver, but if it has there is no record
Of it. Isn't it about time that the army
hould be made to keep step with the
progress of modern civilization?