The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-01-08

i some measure on the Immediate dis | charge or dismissal of any man of regiment in arms, and, equally that the | cause of such dismissal should not at ! the time be disclosed by the respon- ! sible ministers of the crown" Power Is Inherent.
 ."There can be no doubt whatever that the power of summary dismissal was inherent in the officer of comman- ! der in chief when the president was in- vested by the constitution with that off, | flee and there has never been any at | tempt on the part of Congress to pre- vent or interfere with the exercise of | this authority. Enlistment is a con- | tract and has been so held by the Su- preme Court of the United States and | 1t is a contract terminable at will by | the government. This Is all that Is
 done when a soldier is discharged with | out honor. The commander in chief or | his representatives terminates the con tract of enlistment The precedents | are gathered together in the report of | the judge advocate general and 1t ap- pears that no less than 352 enlisted
 men were discharged withon. honor from the army of the United States 1 during the past year.
 | It makes no difference whatever fin | principle whether one man or ten or | one hundred or an entire regiment are | dismissed in this way. The principle
 is the same in alt The power of sum
 mary dismissal must rest where It has always rested. with the highest mili- | tary authority in the country. It IS impossible to conceive of maintaining an army on any other principle If | soldier cannot be separated from the | service except by being convicted of | crime on evidence which would satisfy a jury in a civil case, there Is no pos-
 sibility of maintaining military disci- pine.
 The power to dismiss or terminate 1 the contract of enlistment Is ahsolute- | iy essential to the maintenance of an l army. In fact the principle runs I through all business and society. Civil | society could not go on if the power or I dismissal or removal without the neces- | slty of evidence to convict before a 1 jury was not universal. It has been recognized fully In the civil service. | The theory that the presidents power of removal could be limited was de- | bated from the foundation of the gov l ernment until under Andrew Johnson, the tenure of office act was, passed. | It was found impossible to conduct | the government under such limitations I and the act was modified under Grant and repealed under Cleveland. What | is true Of civil life is true with ten l fold force of the army. If the comman- der in chief is unable to dismiss from | the army the soldiers whom he re- | gards as dangerous to the service and | to military discipline without furnish | ing proof which would convict to a I jury military discipline would be at an
 end and the army of the United States would become a menace to the people | of the country.
 1 Mir. Foraker reviewed the objections i of Mir. Lodge to the Foraker resolution, I The substance, he said, of the Massa- 1 chusetts Senator's position was that l the matter involved two questions, one 1 of fact as to the affray, the other Of 1 law as to the Presidents authority. Mir. l Foraker said he was opposed to the
 Lodge position on both questions. Denied President's ssoweF. | Mir. Foraker denied that the power of l the President was deduced from what
 was the power of the eommander-in- fclffsf of the British army. It must be I deduced from the constitution of the
 United States. The power the Presi-
 dent derived from Congress was hls | legal power. It was not necessary. he
 said to go to British precedents to as-
 certain this power as the Supreme | Court of the United States had spoken
 on the subject many times and always had said simply 1t was the Presidents l power to command"
 There is no autocracy in this coun- | try" said Mir. Foraker: mo autocratic | dictatorial, unrestrained and unrestrict- 1 ed power: no, not even In the comman- der -in-chief of the army. All the pow
 CT is derived from the .Constitu lon. ' l MT. Foraker emphasized his position l that if Congress had spoken on any
 subject relative to army regulations there was no room for the exercise of any power to the contrary on the part | of the President. On matters of reg l ulation on which Congress had not
 spoken, the Constitution gave the Pres ident the power to make necessary
 regulations.
 | As to the contract of enlistment
 which Mir. Lodge said could be termi-
 mated at the pleasure of the Govern | ment, Mir. Foraker said 1t contained a | provision that it's effect should be gov erned by the articles of war and rules
 and regulations of the service.
 Mir. Foraker maintained that the of. ficials of the War Department and De pArtment of Justice had estopped
 themselves from denying that the af- l fray at Brownsville was a case cov-
 cred by the articles of war by the order that was given to the comman-
 der of the Department of Texas tc
 prefer charges and specifications against thirteen members of the com. |
 The Senator had procured copies oi
 these charges, and he then placed them
 in the Record. While he disclaimed
 any intention to discuss the affray ai this time. MT. Foraker remarked he
 would say in passing that if what iS l contended be true, that there was such | conspiracy and such consummation | of 1t and that the number of men en- | gagged in 1t and the number of access
 sories before and after the fact neces-
 sary to carry it out. were as charged | 1t is a thing which has never happened
 in all the history of our criminal ju- | risprudence.
 Such a thing never could happen
 never will happen and never did hap
 pen"
 Mir Foraker said these arrests were | made but as yet none of the men
 charged had been tried or given oppor- 1 tunity to refute the charges against them with evidence.
 | Speaking of the Presidents position.
 Mir. Foraker said 1t might be said by
 him: T know what was the power of
 the commander-in-ch chief in the British army and in the American army under Washington. and have that power" 'He may be right" continued Mir.
 Foraker. He has his ideas of law. He has doubtless studied this question. Others have doubtless studied 1t. and are in accord with him. as the Senator l from Massachusetts is. and therefore may be entirely wrong. But am sim ple-minded enough to think it makes a | great deal of difference whether or not there are facts enough to justify his | action