the number completed during the year 1884-'85 demonstrates commendable activity and zeal on the part of the force employed in this important work. The labor of preparing briefs for action on applications for remuster under the provisions of the act of June 3, 1884, has progressed as satisfactorily as could reasonably be expected from the number of clerks employed, which number is limited only by the available desk room in the Volunteer Service Division, and my inability, with present accommodations, to provide additional working space that necessarily should be within convenient reach of the records that must be examined in the preparation of reports. Of this class of claims 10,852 were on hand October 1, 1885, 5,308 have been received during the year, and final action taken on 1,975 cases, leaving 14,185 claims awaiting investigation and action. At the close of the late war there were at large 230,000 men against whose names on the rolls the charge of desertion had been entered. It would be a liberal estimate to assume that the cases of 100,000 of these men had been acted upon prior to the passage July 5, 1884, of the law providing for the removal of the charge of desertion, thus leaving 130,000 cases to be presented for action. Up to October 1, 1886, 47,354 applications have been received, and of this number 35,000 were rejected as not coming within the provisions of the law of July 5, 1884, or of the supplementary act passed May 17, 1886; in 5,765 cases the charge was removed, and 1,989 applications were denied as not warranting favorable action. There remains now on hand 4,600 claims, of which 2,460 are simple applications for removal of the charge of desertion, and 2,140 are pension cases in which desertion is charged against the claimants in former reports of their military status. It will be seen from the above statement that there still remain about 83,000 men charged with desertion who have not yet made application for the removal of the charge, but it is fair to presume that nearly all will do so. The fact must also be recognized that the rejected cases are never closed, but are liable to be called up for reconsideration on appeals submitting additional testimony, which must be examined to determine its value or relevancy. The work of investigating each case and preparing a brief of facts for action involves patient and careful examination of numerous recordsmuster-rolls, company and regimental books, hospital records, &c., and demands thorough acquaintance with the minutiae of military papers, clear judgment, and untiring industry. The preparation of briefs in pending cases will be pushed as rapidly as the necessarily limited clerical force (in view of other pressing demands) I have been able to assign to this work will permit. The great increase of calls from the Pension Bureau, as stated in this report, and the rapid accumulation of applications for remuster and for the removal of the charge of desertion, coupled with the fact that, recognizing the importance of prompt rendition of reports in pension and kindred cases, I have kept the other divisions of the office with a barely sufficient force to transact current business of the Army, leaves me no other alternative but to urge that Congress be asked to authorize the employment of twenty-five additional clerks to enable me to meet, with some success, the increased volume of business devolving on my office. I have felt it my imperative duty in former reports to call attention to the important question of preservation of the oflicial records (musterrolls) from which reports are made to the Pension Office and other bureaus of the Government in pending claims of various kinds. The de plorable condition of many of these rolls, from causes which I have here tofore set forth at length, is steadily growing worse, and their absolute destruction is only prevented by the exceeding great care exercised in handling them. To secure to the Government the important information they contain, I beg to recommend the employment, outside of office hours, of a number of my best clerks for the purpose of copying the most dilapidated rolls, and that an appropriation be asked of Congress to compensate the clerks engaged in this extra work, of necessity to be done at night, at a rate computed on the basis of their current salary and the number of hours in which so employed. In closing this report it gives me sincere pleasure to bear testimony to the general intelligence, zeal, and efficiency of my clerks. Respectfully submitted." Hon. WILLIAM C. ENDICOTT, R. C. DRUM, Secretary of War. REPORT OF THE ACTING JUDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL. SIR: In compliance with your instructions of August 12, 1886, I have the honor to submit the following report of the business of this office for the year ending September 30, 1886: Commissioned officers tried by general courts-martial: Number of records reported upon and submitted to the Secretary of 4 Number of records received, revised, and recorded not requiring the action of the President (convicted 12, acquitted 6).. 18 Cadets of the United States Military Academy tried by general courts- Number of records reported upon and submitted to the Secretary of Number of records received, revised, and recorded not requiring further action (convicted 1) 8 1 Enlisted men tried by general courts-martial: Number convicted of offenses other than desertion... Number acquitted, or sentences disapproved by the reviewing authority Military convicts tried and convicted by general courts-martial. 426 1,389 131 1,946 6 Total number tried....... 1,983 Number of records of courts of inquiry received, &c..... 1,188 1,185 117 Number of official applications from the War and Treasury Departments and Pension Office for abstracts of proceedings of trials, answered.. Number of copies of records of proceedings of general courts-martial furnished. Of which 85 copies, containing 5,003 pages, were furnished to parties tried, and 32 copies, containing 489 pages, were furnished to the Pension Office, and other executive offices and Departments. Total number of pages, 5,492. The number of records of garrison and regimental courts-martial, which by the act of March 3, 1877, are no longer required to be forwarded Department of the East to this office, and which have been received and filed in the departments in which the courts were held, is as follows: Department of Arizona............ Department of California Department of the Columbia Department of Dakota 879 327 926 2, 164 Department of the Missouri.. 1,474 Department of the Platte.. 1,512 Department of Texas.. 1,940 Courts-martial convened by commanders of corps under the 81st Article of 848 155 Total...... Number of cases tried last year... Total number of cases tried by general and inferior courts-martial during the year ending September 30, 1886. 10, 225 12, 208 14, 179 345 1,626 Decrease from last year of cases tried by general courts-martial (the first decrease in the last seven years) Decrease from last year of cases tried by inferior courts-martial Total decrease 1,971 Of the whole number of cases tried by inferior courts-martial (10,225), 281 resulted in an acquittal of the men tried, while 6,418 represents the number of different enlisted men tried, many men having been tried more than once during the year. It should be remembered that a very considerable number of the trials by general courts-martial are for minor offenses, as are all the trials by garrison and regimental courts. By these inferior courts the punishment cannot exceed a fine of one month's pay, or imprisonment for one month. In a large number of cases the punishment is less than this. Nevertheless, as commanding officers have not in our service the power of punishing summarily, there is no other way of punishing for trivial offenses than by court-martial. Therefore, the statistics here given show the whole number of offenders who have received punishment in our Army for the year ending September 30, 1886. In armies in which the power of summary punishment exists-that is to say, in the armies of all civilized nations, except our own-the court-martial is relieved from the trial of the lesser derelictions of duty, and the statistics of the trials in such armies will not show the number of cases summarily disposed of-cases such as we have no way of reaching except by trial by court. martial. SUMMARY PUNISHMENT. The large number of trials by garrison and regimental courts-martial for the year ending September 30, 1885, attracted the notice of those in authority, and subsequently a bill was introduced into the Senate giving to certain officers the power of summary punishment in certain cases. This, however, failed to become a law. It may be safely stated that the Army is of one opinion on this subject, and that this power, within certain narrow and well-defined limits, may without danger of abuse be intrusted to commissioned officers. The advisability of such a measure has not, I think, been questioned. The principal question seems to have been as to the person to whom the power should be intrusted. One plan proposed is to vest this power in the second in command at a military post. As to this I am of opinion that it is not sufficiently elastic to meet all cases, inasmuch as the second in command may, in consequence of his relations to the offender, his own personal unfitness, or other reasons, be disqualified for the im portant trust. But it would not be difficult to devise a system, if the principle can secure recognition. Summary punishment is provided for by the English code, by virtue of which the commanding officermay take steps for bringing the offender to a court-martial, or in the case of a soldier may deal with the case summarily. Where he deals with the case summarily, he may (a) Award to the offender imprisonment, with or without hard labor, for any pe riod not exceeding seven days; and (b) In the case of the offense of drunkenness, may order the offender to pay a fine not exceeding ten shillings, either in addition to or without imprisonment with or without hard labor; and (c) In addition to or without any other punishment, may order the offender to suffer any deduction from his ordinary pay authorized by this act to be made by the commanding officer. A constant resort to formal courts for the punishment of trivial derelictions of duty is extremely disheartening and demoralizing to the offender, and, moreover, is sometimes, in the absence of the necessary number of officers at a post, accompanied with serious delay. Officers differ in their understanding of their relation to enlisted men, as well as in their character for independence. The consequence is that whereas one company commander will bring every case, however insignificant, before a court-martial, another will find a more expeditious way of disposing of trifling lapses from duty, as, for example, by a deprivation ofprivileges. Such a difference in the treatment of soldiers should not exist; it is not just. For these, as well as other reasons, it is desirable that the power of punishing summarily should to some extent supersede the trial by garrison or regimental courts. CIVILIAN WITNESSES. In the present condition of the law, to procure the testimony of a civilian before a court-martial may sometimes be impossible. In an opinion of this office dated August 27, 1885, it was held that, in the absence of legislation to that effect, a court-martial had no power to punish for contempt a civilian who, having been summoned as a witness, and having appeared, refused to testify. An opinion to the same effect was afterwards given by the Department of Justice, and the War Department has accepted these opinions as correct. This, however, leaves the court-martial in a very helpless condition, one which is likely sometimes to lead to an entire failure of justice. Article 126 of the British Army Act provides as follows: 126. (1) Where any person who is not subject to military law commits any of the following offenses, that is to say: (a) On being duly summoned as a witness before a court-martial, and after payment or tender of the reasonable expenses of his attendance, makes default in attending; or (b) Being in attendance as a witness (i) Refuses to take an oath legally required by a court-martial to be taken; or (ii) Refuses to produce any document in his power or control legally required by a court-martial to be produced by him; or (iii) Refuses to answer any question to which a court-martial may legally require an answer. the president of the court-martial may certify the offense of such person under his hand to any court of law in the part of Her Majesty's dominions where the offense is committed which has power to punish witnesses, if guilty of like offenses in that court, and that court may thereupon inquire into such alleged offense, and after ex amination of any witnesses that may be produced against or for the person so accused, and after hearing any statement that may be offered in defense, if it seem just, pun. ish such witness in like manner as if he had committed such offense in a proceeding in that court. In this country there is no appeal from a military to a civil court, and no such proceeding as carrying a contempt of the orders of the former before the latter for punishment. If there were, it would probably not accomplish its object, as our courts-martial often sit at too great distances from any civil courts to make this a practical solution of the difaculty. It would, in my opinion, therefore, be best to intrust this power to the court-martial itself. In the articles for the government of the Navy this is provided for; article 42 of that code being as follows: ART. 42. Whenever any person refuses to give his evidence, or to give it in the manner provided by these articles, or prevaricates, or behaves with contempt to the court, it shall be lawful for the court to imprison him for any time not exceeding two months. MEASURE OF PUNISHMENT, The great latitude allowed by our Articles of War in fixing the amount of punishment for military offenses is a noticeable and objectionable feature. By forty-two of the fifty-four articles which constitute the penal code, the punishment is left to the discretion of the court-martial. The consequence is that, owing to the differing composition of such courts as to the age, experience, and characteristics of their members, and of the different convictions maintained by reviewing authorities, similar offenses are often punished with greatly varying degrees of severity; and this again oftens leads to a subsequent partial equalization of punishment by an exercise of the pardoning power. Punishment is most effective when evenly awarded and rigorously enforced, and it seems to me to be very desirable that, so far as possible, a scale of punishment should be adopted which would reduce the amount of dissimilarity now existing. This dissimilarity is very marked in the case of desertion but it is not confined to that offense. As an instance of what is possible under our present system, attention is invited to the following cases, reported in one of the annual reports of the Department of Texas, viz: At Fort A, Private B was found drunk while a sentinel on post; the commanding officer caused him to be tried by a garrison court-martial; he was convicted and suffered confinement at hard labor for one month, with forfeiture of ten dollars of his pay during the same period. At Fort B, Private D was found drunk while a member of the post-guard; the commanding officer forwarded his case for trial by a general court-inartial; he was convicted and sentenced to confinement for six months and forfeiture of ten dollars of his pay for the same period. The records did not exhibit any mitigating features in either case. Thus, the soldier who committed the greater offense received one-sixth of the punishment awarded the one convicted of a vioation of the same article of war, but consisting of an offense of a lesser degree. An equalization of punishment was undertaken by General C. C. Augur, when in command of the Department of Texas, by recommendng in orders (General Order No. 19, Headquarters Department of Texas, San Antonio, Tex., September 19, 1883) a scale of punishment for the adoption of the courts-martial of his department, and the result is understood to have been very satisfactory; but the evil should be remedied by legislation applicable to the entire Army. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM C. ENDICOTT, Secretary of War. G. NORMAN LIEBER, Acting Judge-Advocate-General. |