The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-19
sToN DAILY POST: TUESDAY MORNING. DECEMBER 49, 1892

S. C. 1. wash. C. G. 4ss: United States
vs.. Armstrong Curtis. 44sI. In the case
OF the United States vs. Davis e Sumner
4S2) 1t was upon the following facts. to-
wit:
gun was fired from an American ship
lying in the harbor Of Raiatea. one of the
Society Isles and q foreign government,
by which person on board a schooner
belonging to the natives and lying in the
same harbor. was killed. held, That the
act was. In contemplation Of law. done on
board the foreign schooner where the shot
took effect. and that jurisdiction of II be-
loneed to the foreign government and not
to the courts of the United States under
the Crimes act OF 100.
ann of the opinion. from n con-
sideration of the authorities. that
~ the soldiers. under such circum-
| stances ms TO make the act crim-
| tnHI, stood upon the reservation and
fired md wounded persons outside
of the reservation In the state OF
Texas, that such criminal net was
committed in the state. and in viola
ton of tue laws of the state. aud
| that such acts are triablc In the
courts of the state.
| In the above telegram of date Decenl-
Der IL from General McKibbin occurs the
| following: Am informed that State court
| intends to issue warrants for the arrest
of Lieutenant Rubottom and all the non
commissioned officers at Fort Ringgold for
occurrences which took place on reserva-
ton This the military authorities can
not permit, as 1t would destroy all con-
/ troll over troops at post.
The position OF General Mckibbin Is ab.
solutely untenatle and results in making
the civil authority subordinate TO the
military. when the reverse OF this mas al
ways been one of the most cherished Ideas
of the trainers OF our form of govern
ment not only reflected In our constitu-
ton and laws. and he decisions OF the
! highest courts. both Federal and State
but set forth in the articles of war by
which the military are specially governed
In the case of Dow VS.. Johnson 600 U /.
s., 169) the supreme court of the United
States says: I'VE fully agree with the pre-
siding Justice of the circuit court in the
doctrine that the military should always
be kept in subj to the laws OF the
country to which it belongs and that ne
is no friend to the Republic who advo-
Gates the contrary. The established prin
ciple of every free people Is that the law
must always yield" And in same case on
page 1877 1t was further said; Reporter
cases, in great number and of high au-
thority support he proposition that 4
military officer, except when war Is nag
rant or when courts are silent by the eN'
igences of military rule or marital Jaw
is subject to judicial process for the abuse
of his authority or for wrongful acts done
outside of his military jurisdiction. tMsr-
tvn VS. Tobrigas | Cowp., l6l-l'5l ANA
same case, page lS9 When and where
the civil power is suspended the president
has right to govern by the military
forces. but in all other cases the ciVi'
mower excludes martial law and govern
ment by the war power \ soldier can
NOT Justify on the ground that ne was
ohe wing the orders of his superior othcer
If such orders were Illegal and not lus.i,
fed by the rules and usages of war, etc.
(See also Coleman vs.. Tennessee. VI u D
SAD 100 :. i.
In Is Am and Eng Enc. Law, p. 42s. II Us
said. when person becomes enrolled al
an officer or soldier in the army ne Is no
relieved Of his civil obligations, but SUI
continues subject to the civil courts iu'
violations of local laws as well as tor ia
bilities incurred toward individuals
Under the Revised Statutes OF wv
United States, section lzot enli s -
are eyempted from arrest on fiVli process
avcent for certain debts contra yea pr"'
to enlistment There is NJ statutory en-
actment which extends 'lch exemption !.
officers: but. like all other persons III th'
public service. they are eXemptei %
matter of public policy from arrest upoi
civil process While engaged IN we UGLY
performance OF their duties. Ne'ther th'
: statutory provision as TO enlisted men 10
the rule of public policy as % othcers eN
tends to arrest on criminal process. NJ
text is supported by the following autnori
ties. holding that the "soldie: Is stili
citizen and as such always amennble u
the civil authorities" Estate VS. sparHs
~ Texas, 627: eX parte McRoberts'
Iowa, 500 Dow VS.. Johnson wv " 81, 81
las: ey parte Harlan, 80 Alabama oeS
United States VS.. Kirby, Wall, lS.; !.
S. VS.. Harry. L. Rep, 777i Coxson W
Doland. Q DAILY. n. Y, co. In volume l
Am. and Eng Enc. Law, p. 4al, II Is fur
Their said: IAN officer or soldier VII
commits criminal offense in any porto
of a State or Territory not within tns tx
! elusive Jurisdiction of the United state
is amenable to the courts of suon state o
TERRITORY for his offense. 1t Is The polit
/ of the United States, as shown by u
, fifty-ninth article of war, to Gid the civl
authorities in the administration OF rustic
s on officers and soldiers who have com
mitted crimes.
| .'Where both civil and militlry codrt
have JURISDICTION OF ciiinS VA NV ~
, meanor committed by an officer OF soil q
= the court in which proceedings are II
2 begun is entitled TO proceed. II Is the dur
{ of the civil authorities to Immediately az
ply for the accused as provided by IN
Y ffty-ninth article but II such appli ,a;lo
e is not made. the military author 'e
/. should then proceed to exercise their 1u
: risdiction." The above is taken from an
r supported by the case of ex parte Mhso
$ (105 u. s., 696), and also the case of {
y parte Roberts DC Iowa, 600. and ais
: Coleman VS.. Tennessee. 81 u. s., 500. TIL
!. fifty-ninth article of war reads as follows
a when an officer or soldier is accuse
s of capital crime, or OF any offens
&c against the person or property OF IN
y citizen of any of the United States, wLic
r is punishable by the laws OF the land, u
7. commanding officer. and the officers OF Il
o regiment, troop. battery, company or do
i iachment to which the person so accuse
I belongs. are required except in trne
war upon application duly made by Or
behalf OF the party injured, To use the
v utmost endeavors to deliver him over
the civil magistrate and 10 aid tho o
n ficers OF justice in apprehen ling and q
% curing him in order to bring him to trla
n II, upon such application, any ofiicer y
fuses or wilfully neglects. except in tin