The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1902-01-22
Roosevelt and Miles.

The singing rebuke that President
Roosevelt recently administered to
General Miles and the manner in
which it was given have provoked
much discussion and the general finds
many stout defenders.
The Army and Navy Journal, the
leading publication Of its kind, makes
a very strong case against the propri
ETY., and even the legality Of the presi-
dents action in this matter.
1t declares that the more it is stud
led the more evident it becomes that
the use of article 5 of army regulations
is an obvious perversion of
the intent and meaning Of the article
and serious invasion OF personal
rights. The army regulations are
rules for the guidance of the army,
they do not define offenses or prescribe
punishments: these are provided for in
the articles of war. a disregard of
the regulations is, according to its
nature, violation of some article of
war but the nature of and degree of
offense and the punishment to be pre-
scribed for it, is to be determined not
by the will of any one man, but by
the verdict of a court martial. Mill
tarv law differs from civil law only in
creating a class Of ofenses unknown
10 the civil courts. It does not de-
prive the soldier of the inalienable
right belonging to the freeman of trial
by his peers. The officer in the exer-
cises of his functions has certain
measure of what may be described as
polio authority, authorizing him to
deal promptly with those who offend
against discipline,z but his powers,
even with respect to enlisetd men, are
strictly limited, and if he exceeds
them he is himself subject to punish
ment.. In the case of officers personal
rights are still more carefully guarded.
The right to censure is given to COM
1nanding officer, but this is for the
purpose of avoiding the arrest OF Off
GERS for light offenses. -
The Army and Navy Journal warns
up to its work as it proceeds and says ):
eve have dwelt upon this matter OF
General Miles not in any sense as his
personal champion, but because the
summary action in his case and the
erroneous Interpretation put upon arti-
Gle 5 army regulations has far reach
ing consequences. It claps a plaster
upon the mouth of every officer, how
ever judicicus and discreet he may
be in speech, and leaves the war de-
nartment at the mercy of the mislead-
ing information concerning army SEN
timent obtained from those whose sole
dutv it is to please that thrift may
follow fawning. -
The ofense for which General Miles
was Inundated was, in substance.
his remark to Cincinnati newspaper
reporter who asked what he thought
of the SchIey case that he had no
sympathy with any effort to degrade
a gallant and worthy officer.
For this General Miles was called up
by President Roosevelt and rebuked
in the presnece Of several callers who
happened to be in the presidents office
when that officer called. Subsequent
" Gen. Miles received an official con-
demnation conched in even harsher
terms.
It is true that Geenral Miles had
admitted that be made the remarks
attributed to him, but this does not
alter the fact that President Roosevelt
exceeded his authority and violated
the statutory army regulations.
In the op1uion of many officers and
civilians be committed a much more
dangerous offense than did General
Miles.
The president should be the last
man to ignore or exceed the provisions
of the law.-Atlanta Journal.