New-York tribune., 1907-05-28
SUPREME COURT RULES
NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
Decisions Of Courts Martial Subject
10 Constitutional Prohibition.

Washington, May 27.-The case Of Homer f.
Grafton against the United States which has
attracted considerable attention. decided by
the Supreme Court OF the United States to-day
in favor Of Grafton Grafton is private In the
United States arny, and he was charged with
the assassination Of TWO Filipino natives at
Ciuiniras, Philippine Islands, July "a. 1904
He asserted that he was attacked and shot the
tvo men in self defence. and was acquitted by
the court martial which followed The authori-
ties Of the islands however took the case in
hand with the result that Grafton ser-
fenced on charge Of homicide 10 Imprisonment
for twelve years. The case was appealed from
the trial court 10 the Supreme Court, Of the
islands. where the verdict was affirmed Graf
ton then brought the case TO the Supreme Court
of the United States on a writ Of error, with the
result that the decisions Of he Philippine civil
courts were reversed. The opinion was an
nounced by Justice Harlan, and proceeded on the
theory that Graftons life could not be twice put
IN Jeopardy. IS il by trial in both the mill
tary and civil courts. The opinion orders that
Grafton be discharged from custody
Justice Harlan considered at some length the
question Of the court martial jurisdiction in
Grafton's case. and. concluding that such jurs-
oiction existed. he then entered on the consider
alton Of the Solicitor Generals plea that in re-
ality the man had committed two offences, one
against military law and the other against civil
law
We cannot" he said. assent to this view.
and are unable TO perceive how it is consistent
with the concession that general court martial
has. under existing statutes. jurisdiction to try
an officer or soldier Of the army for that which
the civil law declares TO be crime against the
public. The express prohibition of double
jeopardy for the same offence means that when
ever such prohibition is applicable either by
operation of the Constitution or by action Of
Congress. no person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of life limb for the same offence.
Consequently, a court proceeding under the au-
thority Of the United States cannot withhold
from an officer or soldier of the army the full
benefit of that guarantee. after he has been once
tried in military court of competent jurisdc-
ton Congress, by express constitutional pro-
vision, has the power to prescribe rules for the
government and regulation of the army, but
those rules must be interpreted in connection
with the prohibition against mans being put
twice in jeopardy for the same offence The
former provision must not be so interpreted as
TO nullify the latter. IT, therefore, a person be
tried for an offence in tribunal deriving its
jurisdiction and authority from the United
.-va=ies and is acquitted or convicted, he cannot
again be tried for the same offence in another
tribunal deriving its jurisdiction and authority
from the United States. We rest our decision
OF this question upon the broad ground that the
same acts constituting crime against the United
States cannot after the acquittal or conviction
of the accused in a court OF competent jurisdic-
ton be made the basis of second trial, civil or
military, of the same government. Congress has
chosen in its discretion to confer upon general
courts martial authority 10 try an officer or SOL
dier for any crime not capital. committed by
hint III the territory in which he is serving
When that was done. the judgment of such mill
1ary court was placed upon the same level as
fther tribunals whenever the inquiry arises
whether an accused was in virtue of that judg-
-;snt put in jeopardy Of life and limb"