Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1899-09-13
COURT MART1ALs IN FRANCE,
Wide Difference Between Trials I'm
the United States.

wide Difference between Trials I'm
the United States.
Washington, Sept 13.-Maj. J. N.
Morrison, of the judge advocate eener-
ais department. of the army. when ask
ed to state the difference between court
martial trials here and In France. said:
II is idle to attempt to compare our
eourt-martial system with that OF eth
er France or Germany Our civil sys-
TEN is entirely different from theirs.
and our court-martial system is not less
different from their court martial sys
tenn. Ii person who knew only one of
the systems We're to see trial in prog
ress in the other he would not know
that 1T was court-martial at ALL With
out undertaking to describe the French
system in detail, l will say that the fol-
lowing are the features of ours that
mainly distinguish it from theirs: In
ours the court and all the witnesses are
sworn and specific charges in writing
are presented against and denied by the
accused thus forming definite issues of
fact to be determined by the court. The
trial is generally public and is conduct
ed by counsel on the respective sides.
each witness being examined By the
ined by the opposite side. the accused
becoming a witness for himself if he
volunteers to do so. At the close of the
introduction of evidence counsel on both
sides argue the case. and then the mem
bers Of the court-martial proper (not
including the judge advocate) withdraw
and sentence When these are made
avg 1ed n
move made. or thing done in the trial.
INCLUDING all evidence and The argument
of counsel. Then the record is sent IL
the president Tor in case an officer OF
| the army convened the court martial
10 him) To be affirmed or set aside This
etiicar, thus acting on the record, al
Ways first refers ii to his legal adviser
Tin such matters for review and recon
mendation The legal adviser thus act.
ing for the president is the Judge advo-
rate general of the army, and the one
for the army officer is the Judge advo-
lcate on his staff and not The judge adj
Ivoeate of the oourt-martial. And ever
after this report is made by the law Of
| ticer the counsel for accused may sub
init 10 the reviewing authority. before
the final action is taken. arguments, af-
irregular or that evidence was improp-
erly introduced. or that the evidence as
a whole was Insufficient. After tbs
final action is taken the record is agar
examined by an expert pursuant II
statute: and if it is thus found to be
fatally defective the sentence is Sc
aside and held To be void
I'm our system also the officers com.
posing the court are taken from al
branches of the service. while in Franc.
the court is composed of and the tra
conducted by officers of the genera
staff only.
AS to the procedure in France tn,
trial Is essentially inquisitoral, the &C
cused has no choice as TO whether h
4 Will go on the stand OF not in fact he Il
virtually on the rack all the time an,
4 the court actually endeavors to conyie
4 him out of his own mouth. as it We're
/ In introducing evidence against him n
definite rules are observed to confine /
4 to what we could call competent o
i relevant evidence; hearsay and supposi
tons and opinions of witnesses am
even arguments also go In