The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1920-07-09
DANGEROUS
JOKER IN THE
NEW ARMY LAW
Teaching the Civilian To Be Re-
spectful To The Military
Caste


slow but definite ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of
the American General Staff-we owe
to the Army Reorganization act
which was recently hustled through
Congress by the "bg army" combine
of Republicans and Democrats. Hus-
tied through Congress, signed by the
President and now the law of the
land.
Heretofore great care has been
taken to make sure that a civilian
who, in time of peace, ran afoul of
the military authorities, was not
tried by military tribunal but was
turned over to the civil authorities,
specifically to the United States Dis
trict court, for trial. Charges might
be preferred against him by army
officers, but he was guaranteed
trial by a jury of his peers, quite
in the spirit of the old Mutiny Act
of 1858 which sturdily declared: moe
Man may be forejudged of Life or
L,mbe or subjected to any kinde of
punishment by Martial Law or in
any other manner by the Judgment
Of his peeres and according to the
knowne and Established Laws of this
Realme."
But all that is now out-of date.
Exceedingly so.
Article 80 of our old Articles of
War, describing the organization and
procedure of court martial, said
"a court martial may punish at
discretion, subject to the limitations
contained in Article Fourteen, any
person who uses any menacing
words. signs or gestures in its pres
ence OF who disturbs it's proceed
ings by any riot or disorder"
On the face of it, this looks pretty
broad, but glance at Section Four
teen Diseases the fact that the pro-
visions applied only to those who
were ''subject to military law" A
civilian accused of contempt" had
ties for Jrlal.
But, i'll the revision of the Articles
of War recently made by Congress
and tackled upon the Army Reorgan-
ization bill, the phrase Subject to
the limitations contained in Article
Fourteen" was quietly dropped. "Any
person" means today literally any
person--any labor leader, for ex-
ample, who offends the court mar
tial by his bearing, or any old-fash-
Toned citizen who endeavors to
stand on MS rights" in the presence
of military tribunal.
He can be tried then and there for
contempt" and punished with one
months Imprisonment or a fine of
not more than 500 fine, or both.
1t is not a very serious punish
ment, Of course, but the General
Staff is probably satisfied. The
principle is established and that is
the main thing. Some day they may
slip an amendment through Con-
gress removing that restriction as to
punishment so that the offending
civilian can get the same punishment
for "contempt'-actual or construc-
tive contcmpt-which can now be
visited On the enlisted man.
When the question came up on May
% III the House of Representatives
Congressman Bee of Texas conducted
hard fight against it, but the "big
army" crowd was out in full force
and smothered him. The discussion
in the Congressional Record reads in
part as follows:
Mr.. Bee: "Mr. Chairman, on page
Az, Article 81 seems to me a danger
Gus ore inasmuch as it gives mill
tary tribunal the right to punish a
civilian for contempt. 1t occurred to
me that that was a dangerous pre-
cedent and | felt it my duty to call
attention to it"
Mr.. Kahn: "Mr. Speaker, the Arti-
cleS of War were considered by a
subcommittee of the Committee on
Military Affairs of which the gentle
man from Pennsylvania (Mr. Crago)
was chairman. That committee went
into these questions very fully. They
had voluminous hearings. A com
mittee from the American Legion
appeared before that subcommittee
and went over every article en-
brated in it. That sub committee
felt Convinced that it was advisable
to retain that section and they so
reported to the Military Affairs Com
mittee."
Congressman Crago then arose and
defended the change on the general
grounds that it wouldn't do to let
citizens run amuck in a court mar
tial. Congressman Bee persisted in
his criticism of the section but no
one came to his rescue and the thing
went through!
An examination of the printed
hearings held by Mr.. Crago's sub
committee shows that the legislative
committee of the American Legion
endorsed the bill:
MI. Hull: "As l understand it, you
have reviewed the Aarticles of War
as proposed here, and you agree that
they are all right ?"
Mr.. Miller: chairman of the Leg
islative Committee of the American
Legion) 1--WE agree that, represent
ing the American Legion, we are in
thorough accord with this amendment
and merely want to come before you
formally and tell you that we are
in favor OF this proposed legislation"
Mr.. Hull: Have you any objection
to any of the changes proposed by
General Crowder ?"
M. Miller: eve have no obiec-
ton to them. We realize that they
are largely administrative, and we
are very glad to know by his testi-
mony and that they have agreed to
the changes proposed in the amend
ment
Try "BLUE RIBBON" Cigars, Sc.