CONGRESS. (MILITARY JUSTICE.) 



187 



from the regular army or to deprive him of the 

 commission which he now holds therein. 



" SEC. 40. That the President be, and he is here- 

 by, authorized to prescribe the kinds and quan- 

 tities of the component articles of the army ra- 

 tion, and to direct the issue of substitutive equiva- 

 lent articles in place of any such components 

 whenever, in his opinion, economy and a due re- 

 gard to the health and comfort of the troops may 

 so require. 



" SEC. 41. That the distinctive badges adopted 

 by military societies of men ' who served in the 

 armies and navies of the United States during 

 the Spanish- American War and the incident insur- 

 rection in the Philippines ' may be worn upon all 

 occasions of ceremony by officers and men of the 

 army and navy of the United States w^ho are 

 members of said organizations in their own right. 



" SEC. 42. That all laws and parts of laws in- 

 consistent with the provisions of this act be, and 

 the same are hereby, repealed." 



Military Justice. A measure to prevent the 

 failure of military justice was passed by the 

 House of Representatives Dec. 4, 1900, amended 

 and passed by the Senate Feb. 16, 1901, modified 

 after conference, and approved by the President 

 March 2, 1901. Mr. Parker, of New Jersey, ex- 

 plained the scope of the bill, on its consideration 

 by the House. He said: 



" Mr. Speaker, this bill is well named a bill to 

 prevent the failure of military justice. It was 

 originally prepared by the War Department for 

 the relief of the military courts and of the soldier. 

 Every section has received very careful attention 

 from the committee. The substance of the meas- 

 ure may be stated very briefly. 



"At present, by statute, a military court may 

 subpoena a witness to come before it, but when 

 that witness appears there is no provision of law 

 by which he can be compelled to testify. Military 

 courts have no power to punish for contempt. In 

 the present state of public feeling it was not 

 thought advisable to give that power to military 

 courts, but it was thought right that in such 

 cases, in order to prevent the failure of justice, 

 the military court might present the facts to the 

 United States civil court, and that the man who 

 refuses to attend and to testify might be tried and 

 convicted of an offense against the United States. 



" It will readily be seen that in cases, especially 

 of stealing, embezzling, etc., where other parties 

 who are not soldiers have been privy to the 

 offense, justice will often fail as regards the sol- 

 dier himself unless evidence can be compelled. 



" The second section is directed to a curious 

 anomaly. In the old days it was thought advisable 

 to provide that courts-martial should sit only be- 

 tween the hours of eight in the morning and three 

 in the afternoon. The result is that proceedings 

 are often delayed by this provision. This bill re- 

 peals that section of the Articles of War. 



" The third section gives to military officers who 

 are appointed to conduct investigations the power 

 to swear witnesses. At present officers of the 

 Treasury Department or the Post-Office Depart- 

 ment have the right to administer oaths; but an 

 officer of the army, intent on the same course of 

 investigation, has no such power, but must go to 

 a notary public; and if he happen to be in Alaska 

 or in any of the Western Territories, he may be 

 unable to find an officer to take an affidavit. This 

 bill simply gives a military officer the same power 

 which belongs to other officers of the Govern- 

 ment. 



"The fourth section, Mr. Speaker, is one that 

 tends most to the relief of the soldier himself; 

 and I desire to call the special attention of the 



members present to it. For the }>.;\ -I, 1 < n or fifteen 

 years there has existed in the army \v!m.t has been 

 called a summary court, which, hi part. i ;i k(. s the 

 place of a general court-martial, find h;is jurisdic- 

 tion of small infractions of discipline ;nni triflinr 

 offenses committed by the soldier. I'mler the 

 court-martial system, a soldier who is ;iec-u-o<! of 

 some trifling infraction of duty must, wait n<mie- 

 times even as long as three or four months before 

 the court can be convened, and is subjected to 

 great inconvenience, and often to imprisonment 

 for the entire time. 



" Of course, until the question of guilt or inno- 

 cence can be tried by the court-martial, the sol- 

 dier is under certain restraints according to the 

 rules of the service. To avoid this condition, and 

 for the punishment of slight offenses, like being 

 late at quarters or failure to respond to roll-call, 

 it is thought desirable to enlarge the jurisdiction 

 and scope of the powers of these summary courts. 

 By the present law the commanding officer of the 

 post or of a detachment of troops might appoint 

 a summary court to try small offenders and in- 

 flict punishment not exceeding confinement in the 

 guard-house or labor for one month and the for- 

 feiture of one month's pay. 



" In the case of a non-commissioned officer, he 

 might be reduced to the ranks in addition to the 

 other punishment provided. The pending bill 

 amends' the jurisdiction given to such officers who 

 are detailed to try these offenses, and is believed 

 to be in the interest of the service as well as of 

 the soldier himself. The amendment provides for 

 cases that where there are several small offenses 

 that might be tried together, or where the penalty 

 is increased by reason of its being the second of- 

 fense, under the law as it stands the accused is 

 often kept waiting trial for months, in the more 

 remote garrisons, and 'is sometimes forced to go 

 long distances to a court-martial. To prevent 

 these evils the jurisdiction of the summary court 

 is extended to punishment for three months and 

 forfeiture of three months' pay, but with the ex- 

 press proviso, which the committee added by 

 amendment, that in case of trial by summary 

 court the penalty shall not exceed one month, 

 as heretofore, unless the accused himself, before 

 the trial, waives his right to a trial by a court- 

 martial and consents in writing to trial by the 

 summary court. 



" The fifth section of the bill is an amendment 

 to the sixtieth article of war, which provides for 

 the punishment of high crimes and misdemeanors 

 in officers and men, such as embezzlement, steal- 

 ing, frauds committed against the United States, 

 and crimes of like character. The -article provides 

 that the party convicted shall be punished by fine 

 or imprisonment, or by such other punishment 

 as the court-martial may adjudge. This bill adds 

 the words ' or by any or all of said penalties.' 



" It \vill be recalled by members present that in 

 the progress of a famous military trial within the 

 last year, which involved what was believed to 

 be the embezzlement of many thousands of dol- 

 lars on the part of an officer of engineers, it was 

 contended that only a fine or imprisonment could 

 be aw r arded, and that on conviction of the fraud 

 a guilty officer could not be punished by fine and 

 imprisonment and by such other punishment as 

 the court-martial may adjudge, but only by one 

 of them, and that if both fine and imprisonment 

 should be awarded the sentence would be illegal. 

 It was therefore deemed necessary to add the 

 words 'or by any or all of said penalties,' so 

 that the full limit of punishment that the law 

 evidently intended could be awarded in such cases. 

 This new section provides that under this article 



