The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-09-13

lege accorded Oourts-martial in eXtraordi-
nary cases (Withrop's Abridgment Of Mill
tary Law, p. 161-162) 20 set forth our
reasons for Che conclusions at which we
have arrived.
Section 20 Of the National Guard aOt, az
practically construed by article II Of the
rules and regulations, seems 30 leave TO the
state military board the definition Of mar
sial ofrenses; and il 10 at least matter of
doubt, Of which we ere bound TO give the
accused the benefit, whether any effense
not thus defined can be recognized by
cOurt-martial held under that aCts Hence
as Che subject matter Of charges two and
three is not embraced in the offences de-
fned in article IL, of the rules and Fegula-
tions prescribed by the state military board,
We have, while OonviCsing che accused Of
the specifications, found him not guilty of
those charges.
Our finding as 10 the fourth charge rests
entirely upon itS own merits, uninAuenced
By the question whether ths order men
toned in the specifications under the first
charge was lawful or not. An officer may
disobey or decline 10 execute an unlawful
order, but he still owes the loyalty of a
military subordinate TO his chief, and must,
for the time, at least, look In his own bosom
both the fact that su0h order has been given
and the fast that he has refused TO obey IL.
The conduct of Colonel Hughes toward the
commander in chief was in gross disregard
Of the courtesy due from one gentleman to
another in civil life, and, as the conduct Of
soldier, cannot, II the national guard Of
Kansas is TO maintain any discipline at all,
be under any circumstances palliated nor
Oondoned, much less be held RuiltlesS.
Heroe without regard to his guilt or innO-
cenOs OF the ArSt charge, we find the 40
OuSed guilty of the fourth. Our finding Rs
TO this past ofense Is necessarily judg-
ment as TO the future conduct of officers of
the national guard; and no good citizen can
wish TO give encouragement in the future
to such conduct as that Of which Colonel
Hughes was guilty, in going, while in uni
form and still In command, TO the very per-
sons against whom, rightly or mot, no had
been ordered TO proceed, and publicly re-
vealing the SubsiSting order of his superior
officer and boasting Of disObedisnce 10 that
order, while, at the same time, assuring
them they should not be molssted while he
remained in command. Under any posi-
BILE view Of IL, this was conduct TO the
prejudice Of good order and military dis
cipline and demeanor unbecoming gentle
man and soldier.
Under the first charge we have been
obliged 10 pass upon questions which lie at
the very base Of constitutional government;
and we shall give the reasons for our deci-
5ion 10 the end that its correctness may be
judged.
That the accused was guilty IN HACT Of
The offense Of disobeying an order Of his
superior officer, is not denied. His defense
Ia that the order was unlawful in that il re-
quired the election Of the constitutional
house Of representatives from representa-
live hall while that house was in actual ses-
Bion; and out Of this defense two questions
arise and have BEEN ably debated before Us:
First, DID the order require the election of
(C0RtiRUsd on pGOeS.J