Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-08-14
MUST SERVE HIS SENTENCE


Justice clabaush OF the Supreme Court
OF the District OF Columbia today disposed
Of the Tegeler habeas corpus case The
court dismissed the petition and remanded
the petitioner to the. cuktody OF the naval
authorities. An appeal from the ruling 10
the Court of Appeals was noted. Justice
Clabaugh did not pass upon the question Of
whether or not an officer OF the naval
militia in command OF a United States
vessel loaned to the naval militia has au-
thority to give orders to an enlisted man of
the regular navy assigned to duty on such
vessel as shipkeeper. The case was de-
cided by the court on the ground that the
conduct of Tegeler in itself. and from the
standpoint of the petitioner as an enlisted
man in the regular navy. constituted con-
duct prejudicial to good order and dis
cipline.
petitioner will endeaver to induce the Sec
rotary of the Navy to direct that TegeIer
be paroled pending the disposition of the
case by the Court Of Appeals. II the SEN
tence Of Imprisonment for three months Is
forthwith carried into effect the term will
have been served before the Court of Ap-
peals can hear and decide the matter In
the event that the parole is not granted the
controversy will be carried to the Court
of Claims on an action to recover S57 the
amount the court-martial recommend be
deducted from Tegeler's pay as part of the
sentence. If necessary. it is asserted, the
case will be taken from the Court of
Claims to the Supreme Court of the United
States
Believes Legislation Necessary
Justice Clabaugh took occasion to remark
that the issues had been thoroughly and
well presented on both sides and that to his
mind legislation Is needed to fix the juris-
dietion of naval militia officers in relation
to enlisted men Of the regular establish
ment assigned to duty On the United States
vessels loaned to the naval militia.
In giving his decision Justice Clabaugh
said that Of the numerous questions which
had been argued there was but single ma
terial one which the court was called upon
to decide; that was whether. when United
States vessel is lawfully placed at the dis
posal Of the naval militia for the purposes
Of the naval militia organization and an
enlisted man Of the regular service is prop
erly assigned to duty upon such vessel, the
vessel being in command of an officer of
the naval militia, can such enlisted man,
with impunity, disobey the lawful orders OF
the officer so placed by proper authority in
charge of the vessel? Many fine questions
had been suggested by the argument of the
case so stated Justice Clabaugh. He added
that the mind of the court was not free
from doubt as to the legality of an order
placing an enlisted man of the regular es-
Enlistment subject to the orders of the
Tegeler case.
Where Refusals Might Be Dangerous.
THAT question, however, do not decide,
for 1t is not necessary to decide it, eX-
planned Justice CIabaugh. He pointed out
that he did not think it should be that in
a case like that of Tegeler. where 1t was
possible for the very safety of the vessel
to be involved, that an enlisted seaman of
the regular establishment could refuse to
obey the orders of any officer lawfully
placed in charge Of the vessel Such pro-
cedure would not do for 1t would be easy
to imagine instance where the safety OF
a vessel owned by the government, as in
this case, might be jeopardized by an en-
listed man, assigned to duty thereon, re-
fusing to obey the orders OF the person at
least temporarily placed lawfully in charge
Of the vessel.
1t was clear enough that such dfsobedl-
ence Of orders would be conduct prejudicial
to good order and discipline. Il have no
doubt Of the legality Of the proceedings OF
the naval ceurt-martial in the trial or the
petitioner upon the charge and specification
in this case" concluded Justice Clabaugh
Therefore l dismiss the petition and re-
mand the petitioner to custody.
1t was also pointed out. in connection win
disposing of the case on the question or the
jurisdiction of the naval court-martlal IN
the Tegeier matter, that the supreme court
Of the United States has decided that II Is
sufficient, If the court-martial has 1urisdic-
ton of the person and the thing eompiameo
Of: and as to this there could be no douOt,
in view of the charge and specification.