New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-10-05

Government Carter had defrauded the Govern
ment of these and other sums MI. hose
thought that all four charges were pracuca'S
similar. Mr. Rose said that there was no con
tention that the court martial when urea 'hese
charges against Carter did not act IN peIie0"3
legal way down TO the nnding "i 'he C"ai eV9
and the fixing OF the sentence Tn the ques''''
of the sentence however, II was contendeu 'nA'
the court had acted in excess OF IT'S powers oe-
yond its jurisdiction and contrary 10 IdN- - -
ter referring TO several decisions or courts III
previous cases MI Rose said that ne Woulu
consider the first charge. that OF cohsplIa,Ca ,
auditing false claims. ana conduCt 20
An officer Under Section 6 of the Articles 81
War IL was provided that person ConNlC'eu -. -,
violation Of the provisions Of the section cVul ,
be sentenced 10 pay fine or >2VVo 70 Jv 80,
nrjsoned for five years such other punishment
as the court might deem proper In TINS cas- cas-
however the court had exceeded its au'hCiils -
which was to impose any one OF these penaIVl, /.
by imposing the penalty OF me li"li'7
and degradation.
Court MARTIALs POWER ~ QUESTION.
ito the fourth charge that Of embezzlement'
Mr. Rose said that it should have been brough
under Section 60 OF the Articles Of War. when
provides for embezzlement OF public iuhos' anu
not under Section 60, which relates to inspect
fed acts preiudicial to good discipline. Further
more. Mr. Rose asserted that the payment OF
nent. for II was not an appropriation OF none!
in q manner not prescribed by law. The money
was appropriated in q manner prescribed by
Iau.. il might have been an excessive payment
which would have been the auditing OF a laise
or excessive claim. ., go,
For the Government Colonel Clous started ous
with 8 defence Of the Articles OF War. and hao
talked for some time when he was stopped py
Judge Iacombo who said that nobody had as
sailed the Articles of War and that the only
a,ofo he
of these articles Colonel ClOus said that ne
only called attention 10 these Articles OF war ~
show that in the trial OF mintalE u tt"otio1
court martial only can act, and that TINS acIion
cannot ba reviewed by any civil court lie uvn
said that the court martial had power 10 in Wv
sentence and that in the exercise OF such power
the court had power, under the first charge 10
in,nose fine uTon Carter under the se'onu
charge to sentence him to inpusonWtn'' uIl4T'
the third charge to dismiss him fIoh 'hc AIM
and under tho fourth chaiSc 10 Ihipos', -
terce Of fine or imprisonment or both. lie 'Icn
referred 10 previous rulings of courts 10 p'o[e w.
that the judgments OF courts nlhIuaI u'c i,y
subject 10 revision by civil courts. Inc CouI
martial! he declared, had full power to linposSe
sentence and if its acts were legal in "A single
act il was legal in all its findings ,,. .,o
Mr. Rose in rebutIal said that posSlpN Wv
court martial had the power 10 impose a Inc Iu.
one offence and imprisonment on an"thet' "uI
this il had not done. and II was lrnl'ossIple ~
searching through the findings 10 uSo1|C r dis lis.
what epecijc offence fine. Imprisonment OF us
rnissai was imposed. and because OF TINS ne con- con,
tended the sentence imposed was Invalid ana
Colonel Clous replied that it was the custom
of courts martial to impose punishment Ior o.
fences in lump. not specifying individual pun
ishments for specific onenceS. ... e., ,.~,,,,,
To this MI Rose replied. But u II II N W., =,
no amount ~ custom or practice can make II
r,cbt and this court has authority 10 inter-
vene." r.,aco n
connie reserved decision. meanwhii' ordering
Csr,Cr hack TO the custody Of Captain Roberts.