Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-01-07
MAJOR ARMIES ARREST
Points Discussed ~ tie Court Of Ap-
+ pals
Gen. schoaeIds A1alat to- Detain a
Retired Onicef Upheld - An.
t.f1
Appenf4Pdktible.,

The decision of the G5urt of Appeals in
tho case of Maj Geat A. Armes was writ
ten by Mr.. Justice xonris. and is an elab-
crate discussion Of tise questions involved
in the issue between Mai. Armes and. the
military authorities The action Of Judge
Bradley in ordering Maj. Armes' release,
upon the habeas corpus proceedings. is
overruled, as reported in yesterdays Star.
and the retired army officer Ia held, to have
been properly proceeded against by the mil
itary authorities into whose custody Judge
Bradley is directed to return him. -
Not n Civilian.
The case of Maj. Armes is not, says Mr..
Justice Morris, that Of civilian Euthlessly
imprisoned ty arbitrary military authority,
but that of an officer of the United States
army, entitled to wear its uniform and to
draw its pay. By the express provision OF
the statutory law Of the United States 70!
the government of the army he is made
subject to the rules--.and regulations OF
war and to trial by court-martial for any
infraction Of these articles, and from them
he cannot escape because his duties as
retired officer are restricted substantially
to drawing his pay and monthly reporting
his address. However, says the court a
business not inconsistent with his duties
to the United States, and so far as the ar
ticles of war can be applicable to retired
officers, tLey being in the nature OF things
not SO in some of their articles, the statute
unquestionahly makes them subject to all
the processes Of military law for all Of
lenses committed by them in violation OF
those articles. 1T cannot be reasonably
doubted" explains the court, that the
charges against the appellee in. this case
are of offenses against the military law, OF
which retired officers as well as officers of
the active service may be equally guilty.
These are. first. conduct prejudicial to good
order and military discipline, and, second,
conduct rnbecoming an officer and gentle
man.. The specificatio under. each of
these Is statement Of the incorporate and
improper letter written by the appellee to
the general of the army" a.! =. 80.
Right. to Arrent.av
If there was, continues the court, any
reason to conjecture what might be the pur-
pose Of Congress in holding retired officers
to trial by court-martial for infractiop. OF
military laws, no better example gould be
the court intimates that a wiser course
might have been found in measures n,ilder.
1t was altogether proper and right. and
was a prerequisite to the trials because no
man can be tried without his presence;
thus It. was somewhat equivalent to pro-
ceedings in criminal Jurisprudence. Major
Armes was clearly subject to arrest and
detention by military authority. And. says
the court, even If there is excess. or
abuse in the mode Of detention Of an &C
cused person it does not follow that this
may be remedied by the writ Of habeas
corpus. 1t must be very grave and I'M
usual case to justify Becourse to that writ.
Will Appeal.
In conclusion, the Gnurt of Appeals sus-
tains the contention of,the military author
tiles that a military. court has jurisdiction
over Major Armes, and that Gen. Seho-
field, as acting secretary Of war. possessed
full authority to order his arrest.
Possible Appeal.
Speaking today to a Star reporter, Mr..
Jackson H. Ralston, of counsel for Maj.
Armes, stated that it had not yet been
determined whether or not he would ap-
peal to the United States Supreme Court
from the decision of the Court of Appeaie
The matter would, he thought, depend al
together upon the intention of the military
authorities. Maj.h Azsness had never, Mr.
Ralston explained. seriously questioned the
power of the military authorities to sub
ject him to a trial by court-martiaL But
rest by a file of soldiers and subsection to
practically close confinement were neces-
sery proceedings to a trial by .court-mar-
tial. 1t was subsection to close confinement
which Maj. Armes lad resisted, and should
the military authorities now decide to
omit that, Mr. Ralston thought that 1t was
mere than pr obable that Maj. Armes would
not prosecute an appeal from the decision
Of the Court Of Appeals.