Year: 1872

From the tenor of the following article taken from The Army and Navy Journal of January 18th, it ap- hears that our remarks, in previous numbers of TIE CITIZEN, on the sub- feet of branding CT indelibly marking military convicts, are concurred in by high military authority, besides Gen. Crook Commander of this Department, and is additional proof that the in fiction of this punishment is contrary to the spirit of the age. In our pre- vious remarks on this subject, how ever, we gave the impression and sup posed 1t to be correct, that General Crooks action in remitting such DOT ton of the sentence ill each case tried in his Department, was simply an ex- ercise of his prerogative as Depart ment Commander but we are glad to record that his views on this sub feet, have in their favor the weight of the opinion of the highest authority on military law in the United States the eminent Judge Advocate Gen. eral of the Army, Judge Holt; and that, in carrying out this policy of the Government, published by authority of the Hon. Secretary of War, he acted in accordance with the express wishes, if not orders, of his military superior.

 While making this correction we do not wish to be understood as abating one jot of our opinion that General Crooks action in the matter Is fully in accordance with his own we'll known humane views, as expressed in every order he has ever issued on this subject, for it is well known that dur ing the time he was in command of the Department of the Columbia, embracing Idaho and Washington Territories and Oregon, he always remitted every portion of sentence which imposed the inhiction of stain that no repentance however sincere could ever efface, undoubtedly believ- inr that "The yileSt sinner may re- turn.''

 We commend the remarks of the distinguished officer commanding the Department of the East, as being those of good sense, just law, and in spired by true humanity without relaxation of a purpose to adequately punish crime and promote discipline in the army.

 The Army and Navy Journal, in predicting the subject, directs the special attention of courts-martial to the emphatic remarks of the higher army officers as follows:

 We commend the following en- phatic remarks of General McDowell upon the subject of branding as a punishment, to the special attention of officers serving upon courts-mlrtial, and to officers reviewing their pro- ceedings:

 It is true that 1t has been customary to mark indelibly the body of certain prisoners, as 1t was once the practice to brand them on the face with hot iron; but such punishment as that given by the court has become so abhorrent to the present state of society that 1t is not too much to say that, if it were generally known to be still insisted upon in the Army, Congress would be allowed no rest till it had abolished it even if it had to abolish the Army along with it!

 In this connection attention Is again called to General Orders No. 23, series of 1869, from these Headquarters, in the case of Private Bell, Fourth Artil- lery, an extract from which is repub- lished as all appendix hereto.

 Extract from remarks in case of Private Bell, Fourth Artillery.

 In this connection the following opinion of the Judge-Advocate- Gen sral, pages 3O5 and 3O6, paragraph 3, which is entirely approved by the