The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-01-03
The Case of General Miles.

Army and Navy Journal.
 It will be remembered thath just previous to the retirement of the late Rear Admiral Richard W. Meade, United states Navy, ne was guilty of the indiscretion Of critieisne t some act of the Cleveland administration To! which he was openly rebuked by the Presiden: Last year. Captain French E. Chadwich, U which appeared In the public prints. received a still sharper rebuke from the Secretary or the Navy in a letter which was given to the the public through the newspapers. Now, the lieutenant General Commanding the Army, the highest officer in the military service Is the rebnke in his case being the direct act of the President through the Secretary Of War.
 It would seem to be well therefore the ,r,,c in the ton of the services to determine how far the President. the Secretaries of War and the have the right to thus infiot humiliation; not to say disgrace upon military officers subject to the control of the President CT ,I by virtue or
 We speak of the right of the Chief Execu- tive and not of his power to do as he pleases in the matter. for that is practically unlimited, as more than one officer. of otherwise blame less reputation, has learned by sad experience. 1t was the common practice during the days of the trucuent Stanton for Army officers to be subjected to humiliation. and even in suit. without redress. and 1t is because there appears to be a disposition of late to return to this method of enfofcing discipline that the question of right involved becomes impor- tant
 The gravamen of the offense in each of the three cases we have named was the publica- tion in the newspapers Of opinions such as any citizens not in the military service is free to express. The prohibition of such pub lication is found in Army Regulations. Article l. paragraph S. which reads as follows: tary men conveying praise or censure. or any mark of appreciation. toward others in the to private or personal transactions between officers prohibited. Efforts to influence ,.Sn ss A .bod ,o be made except through regular military chan nes the adoption of any other method by the military record of those concerned"
 It will pc observed that the paragraph IS Ii- vided into two sections relating to different for the offenses forbidden is in notation upon the military record of the offender. To this alterius.'' would seem to apply nni with ref erence to ths articles of war it has been ex- ment IS prescribed. this. according to an ec- crpted principle of interpretation. is manda- tory and exclusive. (op. J. A. G., page 4o) The appearance in the same paragraph ot a prohibition of acts of similar nature. that is deliberation and discussion conveying praise or blame would indicate that the same pen atty is to he applied to these and that the same rule of interpretation applies.
 However this may be. 1t Is certain that mili- least their complimentary opinions of others. to the extent of publishing resolutions of approval and the presentation of various tangible tokens of esteem. If a different rule is to prevail in the future, and more severe penalty is to be imposed than the one appa- rently intended, 1t would seem that some more appropriate method might be found for making the fact known, than by the open re- Secretary of an officer of long and distn- gushed service who by virtue of his posi- tion, represents the honor and dignity of the
 By Article sss of Regulations punishment for light offenses is limited to the censure of the commanding officer. and reprimand such as has been administered to the Lieu tenant-Genera can only be administered on the verdict of a courtmartial as 1t is dis named offenses Even a non commissioned of hcer is under the protection of Article 256. which directs officers to be cautious in re- proving him in the presence or hearing of pri- vate soldiers Is 1t not incumbent that at least equal consideration should be shown to the officer commanding in the presence of his military interiors?
 There is general misunderstanding hy men not trained to the military service and ia miliar with it's system of checks and balances, as to the extent and limitation of the seem ingly arbitrary authority of mil military com, SGn, that courtesy and consideration for others are the foundations of military disciplin" ing upon the highest well as upon the low est That there may be no misunderstlndlns to this in the very forefront of the Reg clared:
 hrmness and justice. Punishment must con form to law and superiors are forbidden to injure those under their authority by tyran- nical or capricious conduct. or by abusive language. Courtesy among military men Is indispensable to discipline
 The smart of a public rebuke Is very severe in the of a military man and the Destowal of 1t should be reserved punishment for some fragrant offense duly determined by the verdict of a courtmartial. Experience may thcken the hides of men who, in order to obtain pro motion through the suffrage, are ob- liged to run the gauntlet of unlimited crtl- cIsm and abuse, but God forbid that this should ever be true of military men, or that the time should ever come when they were not ready to say:
 'Retter to die ten thousand deaths,
 Than wound my honor"
 Montgomery Theatre.