The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1914-07-07

Quoting his defense, and is denied
that right, except where it is imp-ac-
tlcai 10 obtain counsel, such denial
constitutes "a fatal irregularity, and
the improper procedure of designat-
ing the Judge advocate to act in that
capacity doe not Offset this irregu-
larlty nor fulfill the requirements Of
the law"
For years the Navy has been is Il
ing as a regular part Of its routine. a |
monthly leafet or bulletin that con-
lalns the urinary Of corrt-martia
cases for that particular month. The
list itself is brief, but following. UNI
der the heading Of Remarks" is a
commentary on the special cases that
have occurred. 1t is a course in law.
1t bristles with pointed and biting
phrases where it points out to officers
OF court-martial their errors of law
or procedure; IL argues, explains, an
alyzes, e~xpounds, and condemns the
courts unsparingly when EIDE il
quotes from the Federal courts de-
clSlOnS and from the decisions of
State courts. The ~thoroughness with
which this legal laboratory work is
done under that innocuous heading of
'RemaTks' is a guarantee that a le-
gal error Of violated regulation is as
little likely to slip by as it would be
IN the most eXacting civil court of APP
ipeals. 1t does not even hesitate to
set aside the acts of courts-martial
that have convicted guilty men, r the
trial has not been properly AT f}iTly
conducted. And it ~frequenty sends
back cases to cOurtS-martial for recon
SldefatiOn of the verdict, where there
has not been an adequate sentence
imposed.
And it sends back cases for q sever
er sentence when "A trivial one has
been awarded, not only in the cases
Of enlisted men, the ordinary sailors
QnI n ~ ~ &C hat in Aho moo 1T 1850
I missioned officers as we'll.
} But what is to prevent such mis-
carriages and expressions as some
l times occur in the Army from occur
| ing in the Navy? Nothing except a
rigorous, vigilant and conscientious
administration that follows an ideal of
equal and exact justice and that holds,
with Emerson, that We dare not let
pass unchallenged IN injury to the
. rights of the humblest lest our own be
jeopardized. In addition to that, ever
e for the military or naval arm of a
[ government, it must reflect the ad-
$ vancing social and economic stand
ards of civilization.
y This the Navy does SO believe, as
stated in official documents. Tn. com
mander in chief Of the United States
Pacific Fleet in 1911 wrote in an Off.
cial comment on a case:
THE general drift Of public opinion
in the United States today shows {
q marked tendency toward depressing
the use of intoXicants, and it behoove.
a the officers Of the naval service to taxi
n note Of this determination"
= This is the expression Of a princi
n pie, and from an officer who has no
the pOwer to impose it but only t.
q point it out as a policy. 1t is signi
ficant, and in its early date it look
re almost like a prophecy in the light o
al the famous "wine-mess" order.
Now let us take up the first tests
~ Let us take a case of robbery an
ir assault of a civilian.
e. Mike J~ankowski, an enlisted mar
s, coal passer Of the United States Navy
IS was tried by a general cO~urt-Inart1a
If on the charge of assault and robbery
ct He was found guilty OH both charge
ne in that he did by violence feloniousl
ut take, steal, and carry away from
cash register" in an ice cream baZaal
the sum of SIS.
T. In the light of the evidence ther
y, was no question as to his guilt an
is the propriety of d heavy sentence
Re The ends of justice had apparent
we'll served and Janowski was no OF
i'll ject for sympathy.
ut But in that little monthly bulletl
the Judge Advocate General of til
of Navy discussed IT, case OVer one pas
u and a half as he analyzed the chars
I'd Of "RObbery' in the light of the fac
C. in evidence and the specifications
1.-The charge. He cited firm one case
pin the United States Federal Court, or
to case from the Stale Court of We
an Virginia, one from the c~urtS OF VI
a GINA. AMI one from the M~aSsachdse
court. and all bearings on the Oil
tinction between the crime of no
la berry n the crime of Theft Al
Ike then, in summing up. he wrote:
oal But in Jankowski's case, it W;
ial clear that the element which const
lat tutes the essential difference betwee
,en the two crimes referrd to was II
he alleged in the specification. The omi
he sion was not one Of form but of fat
as There was nothing in any part OF Il
IVY Specification when, even oy l!lelel,
ate suggested this important nii9StiiE el
he ment of the crime of robbery
at In view Of the foregoing, the depal
n1ent held tina the specification l.
- -noao.l- nharna e OhhprN &