The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-04-30
SEATTLE, TUESDAY, APRIL 80.
COURTS MARTIAL SENTENCES.

An interesting question from more than
legal standpoint Is the one now under
consideration BY The supreme court OF
the United States involving the legality
OF sentences OF courts martial. when the
penalty imposed is Imprisonment In
penitsntiary.
The case In question Is that OF an en-
bsxzl!ng pay clerk of the receiving ship
Franklin. who was sentenced by court
martial 10 two years Imprisonment and
dishonorable discharge from the service
thereafter The clerk applied 10 the
United States court for writ OF habeas
corpus. and was ordered discharged from
custody. the court holding that courts
martial have no jurisdiction OF such CT
lenses. when committed In time OF peace.
Tho case Is now on appeal to the supreme
court. aud. after argument. is under adj
vIsement.
The question turned on the Fifth
amendment 20 the constitution OF the
United States. which Is as follows:
mo person shall be held 20 answer for
n capital or otherwise infamous crime IN
less on a presentment or indictment OF a
grand jury. except In cases arising In the
land or naval forces. or In the militia.
when in actual service in time of war or
public danger. etc"
The lower court. II would appear. could
hardly have placed any other interpreta-
ton on this section than to hold that In
absolute terms It forhlds the trial by a
court-martial OF an officer or seaman in
the navy for any infamous crime. except
during the continuance or actual hostilt-
ties. II seems altogether likely that the
supreme court viii so hold.
There Is considerable discussion OF the
question among the newspapers OF the
country. Some. like the New Orleans
ricayune. seem TO think that II the SUI
preme court should sustain the decision
OF the lower court 'the whole system Of
discipline now In force In the army and
navy would be destroyed. and 1t would
ne longer he possible 70 maintain the mil
itary forces or the country upon a proper
footing
Thls by no means follows. The term
Infamous crime as used IN the constltu-
zion has been given an exact interpreta-
zion by the courts. Roughly stated. that
Interpretation IS that an Infamous crime
S one involving such degree or moral
iarpitude as to completely dlscredlt a
man, and render his testimony tnadmlss,-
hle or impeachahle on that ground IN a
court. Not every offcnse punishable by
imprisonment IN che penhentlary is an
Infamous crime
The limitations placed by she cons,itn-
zion upon the powers OF courts-rn artlal
are not such as would prevent such a
court exercising all the powers and in
Melting Nil the punlshments necessary 10
preserve the discipline Of either arm OF
The service. The 0fTenHeS which thcy are
prohibited from exercising jurisdiction
over. except IN tlmes OF actual war. are
ceFsain crimes known 20 the municipal
law. and punishable IN the civil courts.
tn the civil courts che punishment OF
such cases may with all proprtety he left.
There are sonae important consequences.
however. which will follow decision by
the supreme court against thc legality q,
such court-maVtiai sentences. one Is that
there arc large numbers Of mon under
going sentences Of Ike character who UT,
forthwith have 20 be released. TIE oshcr
Is that the invalid sentence % \ court
martial would - no bar 20 crlsulnal
prosecution fov the same oTense iu a civil
courr. and a man who has served his flll
time under such sentence may 70 ar
rested ty the civ!l authorities, tried again
and sentenced 10 another term for the
same ofTense.