The sun., 1894-01-19
summary COURTS Nv THE zRmr.
Efforts 60 Modify Thew, with /. view 10
RenderInw Them More U..fu,.

Rendering Them Nor. U..fu,.
WASHINGTON. Jan. 19-The general system
| OF summary courts martial secures almost
universal approval, because Il permits a mt ore
rapid disposition than was once possible OF
petty offences against discipline. Under the
old method. even the m ost trivial lniractions OF
the rules had to be dealt with by means OF all
the machinery OF a court martial, and during q
the delay required in securing justice the
man accused was under arrest and unable to
render service. Again. the demands made
upon the time OF officers In court-martlal duty
were excessive and often the long -delaye ed
punishment turned out to be triang. although
as much as the offence dem anded.
But there are new i'm mprovements atom pted
on the summary court, as the result Of expert
ence with II. one OF the most important OF
these Is that Of altering the existing provision
that any enlisted man charged with an offence
and brought before such a court may object to
hearing Of his case there. and shall then be
lar court martial; and when the court is the
accuser. the case shall be heard and deter
ena oy rsRf.o0 ee S0st coe Hy TsE
In this provision, was to secure fully the sol.
diers rights Acting Judge Advocate General
Iieber thinks. however that this right OF trial.
ct simple request. by a court martial may
furnish an opportunity for evading trial
whore courts martial cannot very well he as;
eembled, and that some soldiers have learned
this and act upon It. Hence he would amend
officers above the rank OF CORPORAL shall not u
they object thereto be brought 10 trial before
summary courts without the authority OF the
ofiicer competent to order their trials By gen.
sral court martial"
The two points to be looked at are. In the
does no in Justice to the soldier; secondly. that
it Is not unduly impeded by it's own rules.
by Secretary Lamont. points out that while
the amended measure would hereafter allow
tns accused % to or pc tS Siso the ,ndge in the sum
rarely accusers in such courts. since com m only
non -Gom sstoned officers report delinquents,
SO hat an actual accuser would seldom try
case" But the question arises whether even
IN those rare cases the accusor ought to try Il.
To the particular soldier involved the rarity OF
the cases in which accusers are also Judges
and Iuries may hardly mitigate any sense OF
cases are so very few there would seem to be
all the less need Of altering the present rule to
ay9id CiT ne ,s 6iocking ot Justice; .,.
ure places the summary court on the same
footing with the garrison conrt martial for
that. as II does not affect the validity OF the
proceedings OF garrison court martial that
case Of tho summary court, he may consti-
tute the court" But IL 10 not quite the same
oe So wos to Of fss II
even although the appointing power might be
used with view Wise, to securing ,S SopyictiGn a.
the main thing to be looked at The
fully the benefits Of the summary court 'yD sys,
tenn, yet in such way as not to arouse the be-
lief or suspicion that II Is, or can he made an
instrument OF oppression or even OF unfairness
and injustice. Perhaps, however. a consider
ties which summary court can inflict are very
limited. and that single officer may well have
a summary control, to certain extent. over
his men. The views OF Col Lieber on this
point are worth citing:
five remember how very limited the power OF pun.
ishment Of the summary court Is how responsible the
some legal means OF preserving discipline IL will
think. be recognized that the proposed Amendmentis
dsrsed by the line Officers OF 44o army.
=, Col. Carlton, Eighth Cavalry. even holds that
tho commanding officer OF the company to
whice the offender belongs should he consult
ed with reference TO the punishment awarded.
as he is supposed to be responsible for the
discipline and 10 know the peculiarities OF his
own men," He also thinks that garrison
courts martial shoul have the power TO give
three times the punishment allowed to sum
mary court for tho same offences. Offenders
generally appeal to garrison court simply to
delay punishment. and not because they are
not guilty. Major Keyes, Third Cavalry. rec
ommends that the garrison court be abol-
stance ordered before the summary court
TO have the right to appeal TO general
courts martial, subject to the decision OF the
Captains tbs, right TO punish men for slight
offences by three or less tours OF fatigue duty
and three or less days OF contlne m snt. the
soldier having the right to apneal to the sum-
mary court, subject to the decision OF the post
No doubt the subject OF amending the law
providing Tor summary courts. as undertaken
In the pending bill for that purpose. will be
views OF the acting Judge Advocate General
will receive due weight