The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-12-31
CURRENT TOPICS.

iIllN 4Ness y
think that the President was Just naDle
in administering his singing rep 11ssl 20 1
General Miles. 1t says:
It will be remembered that just previous
to the retirement OF the late Rear-Ad11li-
raj Richard w. Meade United states
Navy, he was guilty Of sthe lndisoretioi,
of scriticising some act OF the C leveiat,u
administration, for which ne was of'eiiiy
rebuked by the president: Last I1 sea
Captain French E. Chadwick, Y. ,. M
for; a similarly indiscreet statement,
which appeared in the public prints, re
ceived a still sharper rebuke from tne
Secretary OF the Navy in a letter "htcil
was given to the public through the news,
papers. Now the Northumberland
commanding the army the highest oitlcer
In the military service, is called upon 70
undergo a similar experience, the rebuke
in his case being the direct act Of the
President through the Secretary of war.
1t would seem to be WELL therefor, In
the interests of discipline and for the
instruction of the services, to determine
how far the President or the Secretaries
of War and the Navy, speaking In the
name of the President, have the right 70
thus indct humiliation, not to say dis
grace. Upon military officers subject 10
the control Of the Presidnt by virtue OF
his authority as Con'mandcr-in-Chlet.
We sneak OF the right OF the Chief
Executive aud not OF his power to do as
hc pleases in the matter, for that is prac-
tically unlimited, as more than one officer,
of otherwise blaneless reputation, mas
learned by sad experience. 1t was the
common practice during the days OF the
truculent Stanton for army officers TO ne
subjected to humiliation, and even Insult,
without redress, and it is. because there
appears to be 4 disposition of late to re-
turn to this method of enforcing discs
pine that the question OF right involved
becomes important
The gravamen of the offense in each OF
the three cases we haze named was the
publications in the newspapers of opln-
ions, such as any citizen not In the milf
tary service is free to express. The pro-
hibiton OF such publication is. found in
Army Regulations, article i, paragraph 5,
which reads as follows:
,. deliberations or discussions among
military men conveying praise or cens:1re
or any mark of appreciation towards 9TH
ers in the military service, and all publ
cations relating TO private or personal
transactions between officers are prohibit
cd. Efforts to influence legislation affect
ing the army Or to procure personal taEor
or consideration should never De made
except through regular Military channels;
the adoption Of any other method by any
officer or enlisted man will be noted III
the military record of those concerned"
II will be observed tnat the paragraph
is divided into two sentences relating to
different offenses. In tho second SEN
tence the penalty for the offenses forbiG-
den is in notation upon the military re-
cord Of the offeIfder. To this me maxim:
"Expressio unius est eXclusio alterlus
would seem to apply and with reference
to the articles of war 1T has been eX-
pressly held that where a particular pun
ishrlcnt is prescribed, this, according to
an accepted principle of Interpretation,
is mandatory and exclusive. COP. j. a
r., page 400 The appearance In the
same paragraph of a prohibition of acts
of similar nature, that is elaboration and
discussion conveying: praise or blame,
would Indicate that the same penalty
is to be applied to these and that the
same rule of Interpretation applies.
However this may be, it is certain that
military men have been left free to eX-
press at least their complimentary opin-
ions Of Others, even to the extent OF
publishing resolutions of approval AMI
the presentation of various tangible
tokens of esteem. If a different rule is
to prevail in the future and a more Sc
we're penalty is to be imposed than the
one apparently intended. it would seem
that some more appropriate nletho'i
might be found for making the lat
known than by the open rebuke through
the public press, by d civilian Secretary
Of an officer of long and distinguished
service who. by virtue of his position,
represents the honor and dignity of the
military service
By Art. sos of Regulations, punishment
for light offenses is limited to the CEN
sure of the commanding officer, and a
reprimand, such as has been admins
tered to the Lieutenant-General, can
only be administered on the verd4ct OF a
court-martial, as it is distinct anG
well-defned punishment for specially
named offenses. Even non-comms-
stoned officer is under the protection OF
Art. 256, which directs on.cers to be eau
tious in reprovinS him IN the presence
or hearing Of private soldiers. Is 1t not
incumbent that at least equal considera-
ton should be shown to the officer COM
manding in the presence of his military
interiors?
There is a general misunderstanding
by men not trained to the military ser
vice. and familiar with its system OIL
checks and balances, as to the extent
and limitation of the seemingly aro!-
der. They appear to overlook the 1act
that courtesy and consideration Tor
others are the foundations OF military
discipline equally with justice, and that
these are binding upon the highest as well
as rpon the lowest. That there may De
no misunderstanding as to this, IN the
very forefront of the Regulations lIAr-
ticles 2-4) these principles are declared:
military authority will be eXe1clseo
with firmness and Justice punishment
must conform to law and superlors arc
forbidden to injure those under ,heii
authority by tyrannical or caprl:ious
conduct or by abusive language. Col'r-
tesv among military men is indlspensa-
BILE to discipline"
The smart of a public rebuke IS very
severe in the case of a military man, ana
tho bestowal of it should be reserved as
= punishment for some fragrant oftense
duly determined by the verdict or a cour'-
martial. Experience may thickeil tne
hides of men who. in order to OBTAIN
promotion through the Suffrage. az
Obliged to run the gauntlet OF unllml.e at
cr;t;rism and abuse, but God forbid that
-: .,,o,,,a over he true OF military nleii'