The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-01-08
OUTRAGE AT BROWNSVILLE Subject of Debate in
 the Senate. LODGE DEFENDS PRESIDENT Holds He Had Authority Under the
 Constitution. Foraker Replies te Massachusetts solon contending No Such Right Is
 Vested Even fin Com-
 mander-in-Chief.

Washington. Jan. 7.-Prellminary to his discussion of the Brownsville inci- dent in the Senate today. Senator Lodge presented his substitute resolution, pre- l pared by Senator Knox. confining the proposed Senate inquiry to the "af- fray" at Brownsville and eliminating any review of the Presidents action. I He accepted Mir. Cuiberson's amend ment authorizing the Committee to vis- 1t Brownsville if 1t desired.
 MT. Lodge followed Senator Gearin. who had concluded a two hours speech 1 on the Japanese question. The galler- | ies, including that reserved for the dip- lomatic corps was crowded and many people stood in line for admission in | the corridors.
 Mir. Lodge said:
 l Two questions are here involved, a I question of fact and question of law. They are entirely distinct; they ought Il to be settled separately and neither I should be permitted to cloud or obscure the other in the public mind. The I question of fact may be stated in this way: There was shooting in the streets of Brownsville on the night of August 13. 1906. houses were fired into, one man was killed and the lieutenant of police had his horse shot from un- der him and was so severely wounded in the arm that amputation was neces- sary.
 Either Citizens or Soldiers. I These facts are admitted and are not disputed by anyone. This shooting was dne by some one; it was done either Il by United States soldiers from Fort Brown, or by inhabitants of the town of Brownsville. There was no one else II and it is not pretended there is any one else who could have done it. The I President, the Secretary of War and the officers of the army detailed to in- quire into the affair have decided that | the shooting was done by the soi- diers and furnish testimony to sustain II their opinion. The Constitutional League, representing the soldiers, deny that the shooting was done by them. and assert that 1t was done by the \ citizens of Brownsville. disguised In lt teast~off uniforms of che troops and pro- : vided with exploded shells from the Government ranges who committed this outrage for the purpose of casting odium upon the troops of Fort Brown. One of these two propositions must be proved for general negations are of no use here. It will be the duty of the committee under the resolution to take all possible testimony and decide whether this shooting was done by the 1 soldiers or by citizens of Brownville. This is the question of fact. In it is involved not only the innocence or the guilt of the soldiers, but the innocence or guilt of the inhabitants of Browns vile.
 The question of law Is whether the President, in dismissing these com l panies without honor, exceeded his powers under the law and the consti- tuition. This question can be settled | by the Senate just as well now, and 1 think better than at any other time with least regard for the commttee's decision as to the question of fact. It Is purely a question of law, and I think it ought to-be detached from the question of fact and settled at once. because I think that confusing one question with another has already done harm. tends towards injustice and will create great delay and prevent action.
 The constitution makes the President commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States and Congress is given authority "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" In the fifth amendment of the constitution, the land and naval forces are excepted from the rights guaranteed to all persons who are held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime. In making the President commander-in- chief the constitution conferred upon him all the powers mad authority or- dinarily exercised by the commander in-chief under the military law of the times
 Has Right tO Punish.
 | The commander in -chief has, as such, the right inherent in his offfce to pun ish or discharge except so far as 1t is limited or regulated by the law mak- ing power which has enacted the ar l ticles of war On this point of pun ishment or discharge the articles of war are perfectly explicit Article iv provides that mo enlisted man, duly sworn, shall be discharged from the service without a discharge in writing, signed by field officer of the regi ment to which he belongs or by the commanding officer when no field officer is present. and no discharge shall be given to any enlisted man before his term of service has expired except by | order of the President, the Secretary of War; the commanding officer of a de- partment, or by sentence of q court martial"
 It will be observed that the power of the President. the Secretary of War and the commanding officer of the de- partment to discharge an enlisted man Is expressly recognized.
 The shdionorable discharge can only be given by sentence of court mar tial, the honorable discharge can. of aourse, be given by the commanding of fcer, but there is another discharge
 'escribed as the discharge with
 pnor' which is not limited to the
 of a court martial and which
 within the discretion of the
 ent, the secretary of war and
 commanding officer The regula-
 IS to the discharge without honor
 as explicitly as language can the
 power of the commander In chief
 der such discharges.
 some form this power of sum
 discharges by their commander
 def has always existed and been
 ,ised. Our military law, as have
 Is taken from the military law of
 land and our practice has remained
 tically the same as English prac-
 The English authority. Clode, in
 work says on this point:
 Enough an engagement Is made for
 arm certain. the crown Is under no
 gations to retain the soldier. eith-
 in pay or in arms. for that period.