The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-01-25

NEW YORK, Jan. 23-The Inlted states
Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed,
with costs. the decision OF Judge Lacombe
Diminishing the habeas corpus proceedings
in the case of oberlin NJ. Carter. convicted
by court martial of frauds in connection
with the Savannah River and Cumberland
Sound improvements. The decision was
signed by Judges Wallace and Shipman.
Carter is prisoner at Castle William on
Governors Island. but has been sentenced
to five years Imprisonment at Fort Leav-
enworth, Kan
After reciting the history of Carter's
trial, conviction. aud sentencing, the de-
cision says: 1t is not the office of writ
of habeas corpus TO perform the functions
of writ OF error in reviewing the iudg-
ment OF courtmartial Courts-martial
are tribunals created by Congress, in pur-
suance of the power conferred by the Con-
stitution, and have as plenary jurisdiction
| over offences committed to them by the
law military as do the circuit and district
courts of the United States in the exercise
OF their statutory powers over other
| offences. The question of Jurisdiction may
! be reactive by such writ, as IL may be
when the judgment Of any tribunal Is at
| lacked; but the range and scope of the
enquiry is controlled by the same rules
and limitations in either case. There must
be Jurisdiction TO hear and determine, and
TO render the particular judgment or SEN
| tence imposed; but il this exists how
! ever erroneous the proceedings may be-
! they cannot be reviewed coilaterally or
redressed by habeas corpus.
1t is not contended for the appellant
1 that the court martial did not have juris-
/ diction OF the person of the accused and
/ of the offences OF which he was convicted
but it is insisted that the court transcend
ed its power in the imposition of punish
ment- More specifically. the contention for
/ the appellant is that, while IL was within
/ the competency OF the court martial to try
and punish the relator for the offence of
violation of the sixtieth article of war of
which he was convicted the court exceed
/ ed its authority when it punished him by
7 fine and Imprisonment instead of fee or
Imprisonment: and that the conviction and
sentence for the offence alleged to be in
violation of the sixty-second article OF war
were void because the facts charged Gid
not constitute an offence against that arti-
Gle.
IF the sentence was in excess Of the
authority conferred upon the court by the
articles of war enacted by Congress, 1t was
TO that extent void. as the court would
have gone beyond its jurisdiction in impos-
ing punishment On the other hand, II
the authority of the court extended to the
punishment of the relator by fine and I'm
prisonment upon his conviction OF the two
offences in violation of the sixtieth article
of war, the sentence defeats any remedy
by the writ of habeas corpus. that REM
edy reaches only cases of unlawful i'm
prisonment, and it matters not for present
purposes whether the authority of the
court extended 10 his conviction and SEN
tence for any other offence.
There being no statutory direction upon
the subject, usage permits an indefinite |
number of offences 10 be adjudicated to-
gether in one proceeding by court martial. |
and the rendition of single sentence |
covering all the convictions and impos- |
ing punishment accordingly. however sepa-
rate and distinct may be the different |
offences and however different may be the !
punishments prescribed for them. II fol- |
lows that If the sentence is warranted by 4
a conviction OF two offences. it is justi /
fed to the extent that such offences are /
punishable.
The sixtieth article Of war declares !
among other things that a person who
enters into any agreement or conspiracy
to defraud the United States by obtaining
or aiding others to obtain, the allowance
Of any false or fraudulent claim, or who
makes or causes to be made any claim
against the United States. or any officer
thereof, knowing such claim to be false |.
or fraudulent shall ON conviction
thereof be punished by fine imprison-
ment. or by such other punishment as a
court-martial may adjudge.'
The article, besides the two offences
mentioned. defines disiunctively eight
others and the language prescribing the
punishment is contained in concluding
clause at the end of the enumeration.
We entertain 70 doubt that the conclud-
ing clause is TO be read distrihutively
and applies to each OF the ten enumer-
ated offences, and that a person con-
victed of two or more Of the ten Of
fences is by its terms punishable for
each by fine, or by imprisonment i-or by
such other punishment as the court
martial may adjudge. Any other con-
struction would attribute TO Congress the
intention to ignore any distinction be-
tween the degrees of guilt IT. Furnishing
crime. and to subject = person guilty OF
one offence TO the same measure OF pun
ishment as one guilty OF several or oil
all the ten offences"
Again, the decision says The cOnvic-
ton Of conduct unbecoming an officer and
a gentleman was ar offence in violation Of
article 81, and that article requires that 1
upon conviction the officer be dismissed
from the service. The punishment by pub
lication Of his crime was authorized by ar
ticle 100 which provides for such punish
ment when an officer IS dismissed from the
service for cause. II is also proper TO state
that Congress can. IL IL sees fit. carve out
two or more offences from single crimi-
nal transaction, and impose cumulative
punishments for the different Offences; and
if the court martial convicted the relator
of several offences for a single criminal
transaction. it did not transcend necss-
sarily the power conferred by the sixtieth
article.
The appellant has urged the proposition
that the relator having been dismissed
from the service was not therefore amen
able TO military authority. II by this 1t is
meant TO be said that he longer
lawfully in custody under the sentence Of
imprisonment We think the proposition
has not sufficient color of merit TO require
discussion"
At the Office of the Clerk OF The United
States Circuit Court OF Appeals ii was said
this afternoon that. far as known, no
move has been made yet by Carriers
attorneys, kellogg, Rose g. Smith. to take
an appeal. The appeal, if made. viii be TO
the Supreme Court of the United States.
At the Office OF Carriers counsel If was not
known whether a further appea: would he
taken or not.
AN ECHO OF CARRIERS WORK.