New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-19
ARMY AND NAVY NOTES
Accusers Cannot Be Judges in
Courts Martial.
from The Tribune bureaul
NO ahtp0tn, ~.

OFFICERS CANNOT BE Wrryrs.
Es AND JUDGES TOO.--The Wa, D..
partment has been considering ~.
cases where army officers who v.r
members OF courts martial were CALI,
as witnesses for the prosecution a, n.
trial. The officers. although challeass
continued to sit as members OF n.
court, and in both cases II is h.ls a,
action OF the court is null and void
The rules OF procedure in courts ma.
tial were changed by the enactneu. 1,
the army appropriation act OF March
1919. II Is provided by the law TIA,
after July !. 1913. courts martial shall
be Of three kinds-general courts mar.
tial. special courts martial and summary
courts martial. The general court,
martial may try any person sub,.c, %
military law for any crime or often.
made punishable by the articles OF Va,
and any other person who by STATUTE a,
by the law OF war is subject 10 trial hy
a military tribunal This court con.
s!sts OF from five 10 thirteen members
A special court martial may try any
person subject 10 military law. excsc,
an officer, for any crime or offence no,
capital made punishable by the articles
OF war. This court consists OF from
three 10 five officers.
A summary court martial has power 70
try any soldier. except one holding n.
privileges OF a certificate OF eligibility to
promotion. for any crime or offence no,
capital made punishable by the articles Of
war. II is specifically stated In the law
that special courts martial may In any
case be appointed by superior authority,
when by the latter deemed desirable, and
no officer shall be eligible TO SIT as
member OF such court when he Is the &C.
cuser or a witness for the prosecution
Apparently army officers are not fanf-
lar with this phase of the law. The first
case the War Department has been called
upon TO consider was that Of a private Of
the coast artillery, placed on trial IN tn.
Department OF the East. Second Leuteh'
ant W. T. Boyd a member Of the deaI
for the court appeared In the list OF VIII
resses for the prosecution noted on W
charges and specifications against the sS'
der. His presence on the court was cn2'
lenged by the attorneys for the sodIs
because he was a witness, had to 90 WIZ
preferring the charges and had taken par
In investigating the case prior 10 chAis'
having been filed.
cd n
had taken no part in the invesussu~
OF the case and had not formed
opinion as 10 the guilt or Innocence"
the accused He believed he was co0'
petent 10 sit as a member OF the couh
and could give a true verdict 10 w
case. The challenge Of the defence v"
not sustained. and Lieutenant BOYD W"
sworn as a witness.
II is now held by the War pepH.
ment that the trial was Illegal anu
therefore. the conviction ana sen'en''
of the soldier are null and yoic'
Another case before the dspa''me"'
this week concerned the trial OF
geant OF the Quartermaster Ce'ps, -
which case Captain II. A. Philips, "
ical Corps. U. S. A.. appeared IN w.
dual capacity OF witness ana
The War Department has approves Wv
opinion of the Judge Advocate Ve"'
of the army. who holds in enect ',a
court martial composed either wnoh, ~
in part OF officers statutorily inensW
TO sit as members Thereon 10 "0'
full court.