The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1914-07-07
waste OF time.
Rights OF Humbie>t Guarded.

'C e4A& ia - 81 r : 49,
precise weighing OF legal safeguards
viewed in the light Of ScrupuIous Jus
tice.
In my recent articles in Harper
Weekly on the Army | set forth the
case of the soldier of the 10Th Ca
Valry who was sentenced TO prison FOR
two years on Two charges. de>ertion
and attempted escape. each with a
separate specification. and both de-
scTlDlng and comprising but one and
the same act.
The Navy had a similar ease. John
Bland, q coal paSSer in the Navy was
found guilty Of: Charge j. "absen,
from station and duty after his leave
had EXPIRED. Charge conduct 10
The prejudice Of good order and mill
tary discipline; Charge ;. "desertion"
with two specificetionS
h similarity in the eases lies in
the fact that the specification under
Charge ! and the first specification
under Charge 3 alleged an identical
the hrst two charges, but mot guilty"
to the third charge Of dcsertion. The
co~urt-nartial found him guilty of all
three charges. The review of the case
by the Judge Advocate General OF the
Navy in his compact bulletin is as
follows:
"While little regard was paid hy the
Noait ~ NiAC dfN LIS u ch-
mission OF documentary evidence. and
secondary evidence was repeatedly in
troduced where primary evidence was
o~btainable, Yet it appears that sufi-
Gent competent evidence was intro
duced to prove enough of the speci-
fcations of the third charge TO war
rant a finding of guilty to the charge.
But, as the absence alleged Ander the
first charge and that in the first Speci-
flcatlOn Of the third charge are idcn-
tical, and as desertiOn includes the
lesser offense of absence Nithout
leave, and in ii finding of guilty O.
deeertion a guilty of absenc with.
out leave is included, it is thus mani
fest that the court in this case hav,
twice found Bland guilty of the same
offense, which is contrary L
ut is presumed that the court il
a~djudging sentence adhered to tn
law, which makes it mandatory upol
conviction to adjudge a punishment
adequate TO the nature of the offense
/ and in SO doing assigned a certain
amount of the whole sentence deter
f mined upon as adequate punishment
to each charge of which Bland wa
found guilty; it follows that the &C
Icused was sentenced to be twice pun
2 ished for the same ~offense. which
also contrary TO law 4
l. any ~
tence OF the court and also the aI
: prevail Of the converting authority, i
this case We're isapproved by the de
s p3rtment.'
"DisapprOved' is not only d term {
s disapproVal but it has. in the servio
law, a technical value hat operate
to deVitalize and make imperative II
n sentence-it vacates it, it renders tt
q proceedings in the case wholly tel
g minated.
Justice Impartially Dispensed.
e There is q little over a page in tn
monthly Naval legal bulletin devote
i to the case Of an ordinary coal passe
IT moreover q coal passer who was wa.
O r%antably guilty of desertion. 1t WI
j. the laying down of an impartial Ia
IS thai demanded and eXacted that IL
IF scales Of justice shall never dip vii
short weight in either scale-pan.
Let US consider some further cas-
q taking those in which our sympathi
would be rather inclined to upho
errorsif they inclined at all.
Joseph F.. Gordon, a bugler in II
al Navy, was charged with %''plunderir
an inhabitant' and "scandalCuS 20
ps duct to the destruction of good mo
" ais 1t was alleged that he hs
a stolen a variety of articles from
r, cottage on shore and hat he had a
propriated these articles to his oV
re use. The specifications of the secol
I'd charge alleged that he had unlaN
e. fully in his possession practically {
Nv of the articles enumerated in the fiji
charge all of which he well kne
were stolen property" He vas -four
in not guilty of the first charge a
guilty of the second charge of ha
ge ing possession of stolen articles. IT
ge is the careful weighing of this case
It's without going into the moons
of tency manifested in these findings
in the court, except to say that in I
ne opinion of the department, such G
,st dence as was received if sufficient
ir- prove one specification was equa
It's good under the circumstances
is forth to prove the other, it is c
b. served from a careful review OF 4
nd case that all the material evidence
troduced to prove the Offenses was
as tirely hearSay.
IL "There was no competent eVideT
submitted to prove that amy of I
Tot property belonged to the persC