The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-12-06

tent general for one moment hesitate in the interest of the public. to disband the entire battalion and discharge it from the service in order to avoid a repetition of the danger
 Can a real and logical distinction be made between the crime of reason, un- der the circumstances supposed. and the crime of murder in this case? Both are capital offenses, one perhaps more heinous than the other, and more dan gerous to the government itself, but in both cases 1t seems to me clear that the Government must protect itself and the community to which 1t is responsl- hle from recurrence of such oftenses. not by punishing guilty and innocent ty and innocent from the service. so as to deprive the guilty of a second op- portunity for such crime even though this may result in inconvenience and perhaps hardship to the innocent.
 It Is mistake to suppose that this order is in itself a punishment either | discharge would be an utterly inade- quate punishment for those who are guilty whether of committing the mur evidence which would disclose the per- rGtrators of such a crime. The use of the word penalty in the proceedings is | The dismissal from the service of the members of this battalion under the circustaces is not punishment, how ever great the hardship. There Is a
 
 honorable discharge, which IS only im- posed by sentence by a court This is puhishment. But the mem honoTably discharged. They could not have been so discharged except after a trial They were discharged for the phrase is. without honor" It is not fortunate phrase, because so easily confused with a. .dishonorable dis to distinguish the discharge from discharge with honor, or an honorable discharge, which indicates the termi- nation. in due course, of a satisfactory service, An enlistment brought pre- maturely to an end for the good of the service can not be an honorable dis made. The discharge without honor Is merely the ending of a contract and separation from the service under a protection of the government. which may work a hardship to the private discharged. but which, in the public in terest. must sometimes be arbitrarily
 But it is said that the order forblds re-entry by the discharged men into the army or navy, or civil service, and discharged for the good of the service, be taken back, and the the President in posing a penalty in the proper sense of the term. He is only laying down rule of ineliBibtlity for the service with respect to which 1t is his execu- tive duty 10 prescribe the rules of ad- mission. Should hereafter facts be disclosed, or a new state of facts arise from which 1t can be inferred that the public service will suffer no detriment from re-entry of any one of these men into the service his ineligibility can be removed by a mere executive order.
 Much sympathy has been evoked for those who have been so long in the public service as some of the non-com- missioned officers and others of this battalion of the 25th Infantry. It is to be said with respect to these non commissioned officers. that upon them especially falls the duty of maintain ing the discipline of the companies and the battalion. and that by reason of their long service and from their ofn- cial authority they have more infu- ence over the men and more oppor- tunity to learn the circumstances leading to a detection of the guilty ir with the regiment, Indeed, it was close the facts. but they have failed to do so, It may be that they were not derelict in this. If not then they have had the misfortune to be associated with men whose conduct and immunity from detection require the government in the public service to exercise it's re- served contract right of discharge against the entire body of which they were members.
 The suggestion made in some quar- ters that this battalion has been treat ed in this way simply because the men are colored hardly merits notice. TheI