The daily morning journal and courier., 1902-01-06

officers to be subjected to humlihatlon,
 and even insult, without redress, and
 it is because there appears to be dis 1 position of late to return to this method of enforcing discipline that the ques-
 tion of right involved becomes impor-
 tant,
 The gravamen of the offence in each
 of the three cases we have named was
 the publication in the newspapers or
 opinions such as any citizen not Tn the
 military service is free to express The
 prohibition of such publication is found
 in Army Regula tions article l. para
 graph D. which reads as follows
 Deliberations or discussions among military men conveying praise or cen- sure, or any mark of appreciation, to- wards others in the military service, and all publications relating to private or personal transactions between offl- Cers, are prohibited. Efforts to inttu- ence legislation affecting the army, or to procure personal favor or consldera- ton. should never be made except through regular military channels; the adoption of any other method py any officer or enlisted man will be noted Tn the military record of those concerned. 1 It will be observed that the paragraph is divided into two sentences relating to different offences. In the second sen tence the penalty for the offence torplu- den is in notation upon the military record of the offender. To this the maxim, "Expressio unius est excluslo alterius," would seem to apply. ana with reference to the articles Of war It has been expressly held that where particular punishment is prescribed, | this, according to an accepted principle of interpretation, is mandatory ana ex- elusive (Op. J. A. G., page ADJ The appearance in the same paragraph or a prohibition of acts of similar nature, that is. deliberation and discussion con- veying praise or blame. would indicate that the same penalty is to be applied to these, and that the same rule or ln- depreciation applies.
 However this may be, it is certain that military men have been lett Tree to express at least their complimentary opinions of others, even to the extent of publishing resolutions or approval and the presentation of various tangi- ble tokens of esteem. If a different rule is to prevail in the future, and more severe penalty is to be imposed than the one apparently intended, it would seem that some more appropriate method might be found for making the fact known, than by the open rebuke through the public press by civilian secretary, of an officer of long and dis tinguished service, who, by virtue of his position, represents the honor and dlg- nitv of the military service.
 By article S9S of regulations, punish ment for light offences is limited to the censure of the commanding officer, and a reprimand, such as has been admin istered to the lieutenant general, can only be administered on the verdict of a court martial, as it Is distinct and we'll defined punishment for specially named offences. Even a non commts- stoned officer Is under the protection of article 256, which directs officers to be cautious in reproving him in the pres ence or hearing of private soldiers. Is it not incumbent that at least equal consideration should be shown to the officer commanding in the presence or his military interiors?
 There Is 8 general misunderstanding by men not trained to the military ser vice, and familiar with it's system of checks and balances, as to the extent and limitation of the seemingly arbi- trary uathorlty of a military comman- der. They appear to overlook the fact that courtesy and consideration for oth- CTS are the foundations of military dis cipline equally with justice, and that these are binding upon the highest as well as upon the lowest. That there may be no misunderstanding as to this, in the very forefront of the regulations (articles 9-4), these principles are de- clared:
 Military authority will be exercised with firmness and justice. Punishment must conform to law, and superiors are forbidden to injure those under their authority by tynannical or capricious conduct, or by abusive language. Cour- tesy among military men Is indispensa ble to discipline"
 The smart of public rebuke Is very seveAe in the case of military man, and Je bestowal of it should be reserv ed as punishment for some fragrant, offencGA Auly determined by the verdict of court martial. Experience may thicken the hides of men who, in order to obtain promotion through the suf frage. are obliged to run the gauntlet of unlimited criticism and abuse, but God forbid that this should ever be true of military men, or that the times should ever come when they were not ready to say:
 Better to die ten thousand deaths
 Than wound my honor"
 Army and Navy Journal