decided: January 6, 1902.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.
[ 183 U.S. Page 380]
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.
In Carter v. Roberts, 177 U.S. 496, it was said: "The eighth section of article I of the Constitution provides that the Congress shall have power 'to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,' and in the exercise of that power Congress has enacted rules for the regulation of the army known as the Articles of War. Rev. Stat. § 1342. Every officer, before he enters on the duties of his office, subscribes to these articles, and places himself within the power of courts martial to pass on any offence which he may have committed in contravention of them. Courts martial are lawful tribunals,
[ 183 U.S. Page 381]
with authority to finally determine any case over which they have jurisdiction, and their proceedings, when confirmed as provided, are not open to review by the civil tribunals, except for the purpose of ascertaining whether the military court had jurisdiction of the person and subject matter, and whether, though having such jurisdiction, it had exceeded its powers in the sentence pronounced."
Jurisdiction over the person is conceded, but it is argued that there was no jurisdiction over the subject matter because the evidence affirmatively showed that no crime whatever had been committed. Whether the sentence of a military court, approved by the reviewing authority, is open to attack in the civil courts on such a ground, is a question which does not arise on this record. The motion to discharge conceded the return to be true, and if the return showed sufficient cause for detention, the Circuit Court was right in dismissing the writ, and its final order to that effect must be affirmed. No evidence was adduced in or considered by the Circuit Court, and none is before us, nor is any inquiry into the innocence or guilt of the accused permissible.
Was then the sentence void for want of power to pronounce and enforce it?
The particular ground on which the appeal directly to this court may be rested is that the case involved the construction or application of the Constitution in the contention that by the sentence petitioner was twice punished for the same offence.
That question was put forward in the petition and manifestly argued on the return. The Circuit Court states, in its opinion, that "it is contended in behalf of Carter that his imprisonment is in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and is otherwise illegal and without warrant of law." And, indeed, the application of the Constitution would seem to be necessarily involved if the sentence were held invalid on other grounds.
Holding the case to be properly before us, it will be more convenient to examine the constitutional point specially raised, after we have considered some of the other objections to the sentence.
One of these objections is that the sentence exceeded the
[ 183 U.S. Page 382]
maximum punishment fixed by the President, under the act of Congress approved September 27, 1890, (26 Stat. 491, c. 998), because the term of imprisonment imposed was five instead of four years.
That act provides that "whenever by any of the articles of was for the government of the Army the punishment on conviction of any military offence is left to the discretion of the court martial the punishment therefor shall not, in time of peace, be in excess of a limit which the President may prescribe."
February 26, 1891, the President made an executive order in limitation of punishment, which was promulgated to the Army in General Orders No. 21, February 27, 1891, and therein it was said: "In accordance with an act of Congress of September 27, 1890, the following limits to the punishment of enlisted men, together with the accompanying regulations, are established for the government in time of peace for all courts martial and will take effect thirty days after this order." This executive order was amended by the President March 20, 1895, and again amended March 30, 1898, and in 1901. In neither of these executive orders were its provisions extended to commissioned officers, and they solely related to the cases of enlisted men. It is true that clause 938 of the army regulations promulgated October 31, 1895, provides: "Whenever by any of the articles of war punishment is left to the discretion of the court, it shall not, in time of peace, be in excess of a limite which the President may prescribe. The limits so prescribed are set forth in the Manual for Courts Martial, published by authority of the Secretary of War." But we do not find in the Manual any attempt to extend the limitations to others than enlisted men; and it is evident that a limit on discretion in punishment to be imposed by the President only can only have such operation as he may affirmatively prescribe.
It is further urged that the punishments of fine and imprisonment were illegal because inflicted after Captain Carter had ceased to be an officer of the Army.
The different provisions of the sentence took effect concurrently while the accused was under the control of the military authorities of the United States as a commissioned officer of
[ 183 U.S. Page 383]
the Army. The date of the order of dismissal, of the infliction of the fine and of the beginning of the imprisonment were the same date.
The accused was proceeded against as an officer of the Army, and jurisdiction attached in respect of him as such, which included not only the power to hear and determine the case, but the power to execute and enforce the sentence of the law. Having being sentenced, his status was that of a military prisoner held by the authority of the United States as an offender against its laws.
He was a military prisoner though he had ceased to be a soldier; and for offences committed during his confinement he was liable to trial and punishment by court martial under the rules and articles of war. Rev. Stat. § 1361.
It may be added that the principle that where jurisdiction has attached it cannot be divested by mere subsequent change of status has been applied as justifying the trial and sentence of an enlisted man after expiration of the term of enlishtment, Barrett v. Hopkins, 7 Fed. Rep. 312; and the execution of sentence after the lapse of many years and the severance of all connection with the Army. Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U.S. 509.
In the latter case this court held, at October term, 1878, that a soldier who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a general court martial in 1865, but whose sentence had not been executed, might "be delivered up to the military authorities of the United States, to be dealt with as required by law." In this matter it was subsequently advised by Attorney General Devens that the death sentence might legally be carried into effect notwithstanding the fact that the soldier had in the meantime been discharged from the service, under the circumstances detailed, but he recommended that the sentence be commuted, and this recommendation was followed. 16 Op. Att. Gen. 349.
In Ex parte Mason, 105 U.S. 696, where the accused was sentenced by a general court martial to dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, and eight years' imprisonment in the Albany penitentiary, an application for release on habeas corpus was denied, and the sentence held to be legal.
[ 183 U.S. Page 384]
Another objection strenuously insisted on is that the sentence ceased to be the sentence of the court martial because of the disapproval of certain specifications by the President.
The 65th article of those enacted by Congress, April 10, 1806, (2 Stat. 359, c. 20,) provided: "But no sentence of a court martial shall be carried into execution until after the whole proceedings shall have been laid before the officer ordering the same, or the officer commanding the troops for the time being." In the Revised Statutes this part of the 65th article of war was made section 104, and read: "No sentence of a court martial shall be carried into execution until the whole proceedings shall have been approved by the officer ordering the court, or by the officer commanding for the time being." By the act of July 27, 1892 (27 Stat. 277, c. 272,) the 104th section was amended so as to read: "No sentence of a court martial shall be carried into execution until the same shall have been approved by the officer ordering the court, or by the officer commanding for the time being."
The original article required the whole proceedings to be laid before the reviewing authority; the Revised Statutes, that the whole proceedings should be approved; the act of July 27, 1892, that the sentence should not be carried into execution until it was approved. From this legislation it appears that the approval of the sentence and not of the whole proceedings is now the prerequisite to carrying the sentence into execution, and this is in harmony with articles 105, 106, 107 and 108.
In Claassen v. United States, 142 U.S. 140, 146, it was said: "In criminal cases, the general rule, as stated by Lord Mansfield before the Declaration of Independence, is 'that if there is any one count to support the verdict, it shall stand good, notwithstanding all the rest are bad.' Peake v. Oldham, Cowper, 275, 276; Rex v. Benfield, 2 Bur. 980, 985. See also Grant v. Astle, 2 Doug. 722, 730. And it is settled law in this court, and in this country generally, that in any criminal case a general verdict and judgment on an indictment or information containing several counts cannot be reversed on error, if any one of the counts is good and warrants the judgment, because, in the absence of anything in the record to show the contrary, the presumption
[ 183 U.S. Page 385]
of law is that the court awarded sentence on the good court only."
In Ballew v. United States, 160 U.S. 187, where the indictment embraced two counts, each setting up a distinct offence, the court instructed the jury that if they considered the defendant guilty on one count and innocent on the other, they should so find; and that if they found him guilty on both counts, that they should return a general verdict of guilty. A general verdict of guilty was returned, and judgment rendered thereon.
This court held that error had been committed in the conviction as to the first count but none in the conviction upon the other, and as the general verdict covered both, the judgment was reversed under the statute in that behalf and the cause remanded with instructions to enter judgment on the second count.
In Putnam v. United States, 162 U.S. 687, where there was a conviction on two counts and the sentence imposed was distinct and separate as to each count, but was made concurrent so that the entire amount of punishment imposed would be undergone if the judgment were sustained under either count, error being found in the conviction as to one of them, the judgment was reversed as to that count and affirmed on the other.
We are dealing here with no matter of insufficient counts or of conviction of two offences, sustainable only as to one, but the analogies of the criminal law bear out the procedure under the military law, the rules of which determine the present contention.
That contention, after all, amounts to no more than to say that if the court martial had acquitted on the disapproved findings, it must be assumed that the sentence would have been less severe, and therefore that the President should have sent the case back or mitigated the punishment, and that because he did not, the punishment must be conclusively regarded as increased. This is wholly inadmissible when the powers vested in the ultimate tribunal are considered.
The court martial for the trial of Captain Oberlin M. Carter was convened by orders issued by the President; and he was therefore the reviewing authority, and the court of last resort.
[ 183 U.S. Page 386]
The law governing courts martial is found in the statutory enactments of Congress, particularly the Articles of War; in the Army Regulations; and in the customary military law. According to military usage and practice, the charge is in effect divided into two parts, the first technically called the "charge," and the second, the "specification." The charge proper designates the military offence of which the accused is alleged to be guilty. The specification sets forth the acts or omissions of the accused which form the legal constituents of the offence. The pleading need not possess the technical nicety of indictments as at common law. "Trials by courts martial are governed by the nature of the service, which demands intelligible precision of language but regards the substance of things rather than their form." 7 Op. Atty. Gen. 604. Not only do military usage and procedure permit of an indefinite number of offences being charged and adjudicated together in one and the same proceeding, but the rule is recognized that whenever an officer has been apparently guilty of several or many offences, whether of a similar character or distinct in their nature, charges and specifications covering them all should, if practicable, be preferred together, and together brought to trial. 1 Winthrop, 219; 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 595. And it has been repeatedly ruled by the Judges Advocate General that "a duly approved finding of guilty on one of several charges, a conviction upon which requires or authorizes the sentence adjudged, will give validity and effect to such sentence, although the similar findings on all the other charges are disapproved as not warranted by the testimony." Dig. Op. Judge Advocate General, ed. 1895, p. 696; Id. ed. 1868, pp. 343, 350.
The sentence against Captain Carter was rendered on findings of guilty of four charges and certain specifications thereunder.
It devolved on the President to approve or to disapprove the sentence. Before taking action, he referred the proceedings to the Attorney General, who submitted a careful report thereon, and recommended the disapproval of certain findings. 22 Op. 589. These related to facts of less gravity under Charges I and II than the others set up thereunder, and those under Charge
[ 183 U.S. Page 387]
III though objectionable were not material, as dismissal was the sole punishment under that charge. The President disapproved of the findings of guilty of some of the specifications under two of the charges, and approved findings of guilty of a specification or specifications under each of the charges, and of the findings of guilty of all of the charges, and approved the sentence. He might have referred the proceedings back to the court for revision, but he was not required to do so, if in his opinion this was not necessary, and the sentence was justified by the findings which he did approve. As President he might have exercised his constitutional power to pardon, or as the reviewing authority he might have pardoned or mitigated the punishment adjudged except that of dismissal, although he had no power to add to the punishment. He did not think it proper to remand, to mitigate or to pardon. He clearly acted within his authority whether the Articles of War, the Army Regulations, or the unwritten or customary military law be considered, and the judgment he rendered cannot be disturbed on the ground suggested.
We are brought then to consider the two propositions on which much of the stress of the argument was laid.
First.That the finding of guilty of charge 4 and its specification was beyond the powers of the court martial;
Second. That if that finding were void, then that the sentence was in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Charge I was: "Conspiring to defraud the United States, in violation of the 60th article of war." Charge II was: "Causing false and fraudulent claims to be made against the United States, in violation of the 60th article of war."
Charge III was: "Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, in violation of the 61st article of war." Charge IV was: "Embezzlement, as defined in section 5488 of the Revised Statutes, in violation of the 62d article of war."
If Charge IV be laid out of view, let us see if the sentence was void because in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
That amendment declares: "Nor shall any person be subjected for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."
[ 183 U.S. Page 388]
The Government objects in the outset that the Fifth Amendment is not applicable in proceedings by court martial, and that the question could only be raised under the 102d article of war, which reads: "No person shall be tried a second time for the same offence," and that, moreover, the point was not raised in the court martial that proceeding to judgment under these three charges would be either in violation of the 102d article of war, or of the Fifth Amendment, and comes too late on application for habeas corpus. And further, that the question was one within the power of the court martial to decide, and must be held to have been waived, or be assumed to have been ruled against the accused, in which case the decision would be conclusive on habeas corpus, since if incorrect it would be merely error, and would not go to the jurisdiction.
In In re Belt, Petitioner, 159 U.S. 95, we held that the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia had jurisdiction and authority to determine the validity of an act which authorized the waiver of a jury, and to dispose of the question as to whether the record of a conviction before a judge without a jury, where the prisoner waived trial by jury according to statute, was legitimate proof of a first offence, and that, this being so, this court could not review the action of that court, and the Court of Appeals, in this particular on habeas corpus.
The case of Ex parte Bigelow was referred to and quoted from thus: "In Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U.S. 328, 330, which was a motion for leave to file a petition for habeas corpus, the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court of the District to imprisonment for five years under an indictment for embezzlement. It appeared that there were pending before that court fourteen indictments against the petitioner for embezzlement, and an order of the court had directed that they be consolidated under the statute and tried together. A jury was empanelled and sworn, and the district attorney had made his opening statement to the jury, when the court took a recess, and upon reconvening a short time afterwards, the court decided that the indictments could not be well tried together, and directed the jury to be discharged from the further consideration of them, and rescinded the order of consolidation.
[ 183 U.S. Page 389]
The prisoner was thereupon tried before the same jury on one of the indictments and found guilty. All of this was against his protest and without his consent. The judgment on the verdict was taken by appeal to the Supreme Court of the District in general term, where it was affirmed. It was argued here, as it was in the court in general term, that the empanelling and swearing of the jury and the statement of his case by the district attorney put the prisoner in jeopardy in respect of all the offences charged in the consolidated indictment, within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, so that he could not be again tried for any of these offences, and Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court, after remarking that if the court of the District was without authority in the matter, this court would have power to discharge the prisoner from confinement, said: 'But that court had jurisdiction of the offence described in the indictment on which the prisoner was tried. It had jurisdiction of the prisoner, who was properly brought before the court. It had jurisdiction to hear the charge and the evidence against the prisoner. It had jurisdiction to hear and to decide upon the defences offered by him. The matter now presented was one of those defences. Whether it was a sufficient defence was a matter of law on which that court must pass so far as it was purely a question of law, and on which the jury under instructions of the court must pass if we can suppose any of the facts were such as required submission to the jury. If the question had been one of former acquittal -- a much stronger case than this -- the court would have had jurisdiction to decide upon the record whether there had been a former acquittal for the same offence, and if the identity of the offence were in dispute, it might be necessary on such a plea to submit that question to the jury on the issue raised by the plea. The same principle would apply to a plea of a former conviction. Clearly in these cases the court not only has jurisdiction to try and decide the question raised, but it is its imperative duty to do so. If the court makes a mistake on such trial it is error which may be corrected by the usual modes of correcting such errors, but that the court had jurisdiction to decide upon the matter raised by the plea both as matter of law and of fact
[ 183 U.S. Page 390]
cannot be doubted. . . . It may be confessed that it is not always very easy to determine what matters go to the jurisdiction of a court so as to make its action when erroneous a nullity. But the general rule is that when the court has jurisdiction by law of the offence charged, and of the party who is so charged, its judgments are not nullities.' And the application was denied."
It is difficult to see why the sentences of courts martial, courts authorized by law in the enforcement of a system of government for a separate community recognized by the Constitution, are not within this rule. Its application would seem to be essential to the maintenance of that discipline which renders the Army efficient in war and morally progressive in peace, and which is secured by the military code and the decisions of the military courts.
Reserving, however, the determination of these questions, it is nevertheless clear that the system under which the accused was tried, and his status as an officer of the Army, must be borne in mind in deciding whether the amendment, if applicable, was or was not violated by this sentence.
The contention is that Captain Carter was twice put in jeopardy because the sentence was greater than the court martial had jurisdiction to inflict on conviction of any one of the offences charged, taken singly, and because the offences charged were the same within the meaning of the constitutional provision.
Articles 60 and 61 are as follows:
"ART. 60. Any person in the military service of the United States who makes or causes to be made any claim against the United States, or an officer thereof, knowing such claim to be false or fraudulent; or
"Who presents or causes to be presented to any person in the civil or military service thereof, for approval or payment, any claim against the United States or any officer thereof, knowing such claim to be false or fraudulent; or
"Who enters into any agreement or conspiracy to defraud the United States by obtaining, or aiding others to obtain, the allowance or payment of any false or fraudulent claim; or
[ 183 U.S. Page 391]
"Who, for the purpose of obtaining, or aiding others to obtain, the approval, allowance, or payment of any claim against the United States or against any officer thereof, makes or uses, or procures or advises the making or use of, any writing, or other paper, knowing the same to contain any false or fraudulent statement; or
"Who, for the purpose of obtaining, or aiding others to obtain, the approval, allowance, or payment of any claim against the United States, for any officer thereof, makes, or procures or advises the making of, any oath to any fact or to any writing or other paper, knowing such oath to be false; or
"Who, for the purpose of obtaining, or aiding others to obtain, the approval, allowance, or payment of any claim against the United States for any officer thereof, forges or counterfeits, or procures or advises the forging or counterfeiting of, any signature upon any writing or other paper, or uses, or procures or advises the use of, any such signature, knowing the same to be forged or counterfeited; or
"Who, having charge, possession, custody or control of any money or other property of the United States, furnished or intended for the military service thereof, knowingly delivers, or causes to be delivered, to any person having authority to receive the same, any amount thereof less than that for which he receives a certificate or receipt; or
"Who, being authorized to make or deliver any paper certifying the receipt of any property of the United States, furnished or intended for the military service thereof, makes, or delivers to any person, such writing, without having full knowledge of the truth of the statements therein contained, and with intent to defraud the United States; or
"Who steals, embezzles, knowingly and wilfully misappropriates, applies to his own use or benefit, or wrongfully or knowingly sells or disposes of any ordnance, arms, equipments, ammunition, clothing, subsistence stores, money, or other property of the United States, furnished or intended for the military service thereof; or
"Who knowingly purchases, or receives in pledge for any obligation or indebtedness, from any soldier, officer, or other
[ 183 U.S. Page 392]
person who is a part of or employed in said forces or service, any ordnance, arms, equipments, ammunition, clothing, subsistence stores, or other property of the United States, such soldier, officer, or other person not having lawful right to sell or pledge the same,
"Shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by fine or imprisonment, or by such other punishment as a court martial may adjudge. And if any person, being guilty of any of the offences aforesaid, while in the military service of the United States, receives his discharge, or is dismissed from the service, he shall continue to be liable to be arrested and held for trial and sentence by a court martial, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had not received such discharge nor been dismissed.
"ART. 61. Any officer who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be dismissed from the service."
It is said that the punishment must be imposed under either the 60th or the 61st articles, or under both; that the only penalty under the 61st article is dismissal; that the punishment under the 60th article may be "fine or imprisonment, or such other punishment as a court martial may adjudge," and that this is in the alternative and cannot be cumulative.
That that is the necessary construction is not to be conceded. Offences under this article may be of greater or less gravity, and the necessity for the exercise of discretion is obvious. Conviction in some cases might deserve the punishment of fine, or of imprisonment, or of both, as well as of dismissal in addition to either or both; in others lesser penalties might suffice. The word "or" was properly used to give play to discretion.This is the view expressed in Winthrop, vol. 2, p. 1101.
The 60th article was taken from sections 1 and 2 of the act of March 2, 1863, (12 Stat. 696, c. 67,) "to prevent and punish frauds upon the Government of the United States," brought forward in the Revised Statutes as § 5438, and that act provided that any person in the military service, if found guilty, "shall be punished by fine and imprisonment, or such other punishment as the court martial shall adjudge, save the punishment of
[ 183 U.S. Page 393]
death," while a person in civil life guilty of the offence was punishable under section 3 "by imprisonment not less than one nor more than five years, or by fine of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars;" but when the military offence was transferred to the military code, the word "and" was changed to the word "or." Hence, it is argued, that Congress thereby indicated that it intended to confine the punishment to either fine or imprisonment. We do not think this is necessarily so. The punishment of persons not in the military or naval service (in addition to a pecuniary forfeiture and double damages) was fixed at fine or imprisonment, and no other. The punishment of persons in the military service was fixed at fine and imprisonment, or such other punishment as the court martial might adjudge. The change of the word "and" to "or" tended to obviate controversy as to the range of discretion.
But suppose this otherwise, still it does not follow that a fine might not be inflicted for the commission of one of the offences enumerated in Article 60, and imprisonment for the commission of another.
The penalty denounced by Article 60 that the accused, on conviction, "may be punished by fine or imprisonment or such other punishment as a court martial may adjudge," is plainly to be taken distributively, and is applicable on conviction of either of the offences enumerated.
We understand the rule established by military usage to be "that the sentence of a court martial shall be, in every case, an entirety; that is to say, that there shall be but a single sentence covering all the convictions on all the charges and specifications upon which the accused is found guilty, however separate and distinct may be the different offences found, and however different may be the punishments called for by the offences." 1 Winthrop, (2d ed.) 614.
Where then there is conviction of several offences, the sentence is warranted to the extent that such offences are punishable.
This was so ruled by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Rose ex rel. Carter v. Roberts, 99 Fed. Rep.
[ 183 U.S. Page 394948]
, and Wallace, J., speaking for the court, said: "As has been stated, the relator was convicted of two of the offences defined by the sixtieth article of war. The record presents the charges and specifications upon which he was found guilty of those offences. The charges described each offence in the language of the article. Whether the specifications support the charges or the evidence supports the specifications, we are not at liberty to consider. Nor is it open to inquiry whether the two offences were in fact but one and the same criminal act. When properly constituted and convened, a court martial has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question whether the accused is guilty of any of the offences created by the articles of war. This jurisdiction necessarily includes the authority to decide, when the charge preferred against the accused is the commission of one or more of these offences, whether the specifications and the evidence sufficiently exhibit the incriminating facts. As was said by the Supreme Court in Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How. 65, the sentence, when confirmed by the President, 'is altogether beyond the jurisdiction or inquiry of any civil tribunal whatever, unless it shall be in a case in which the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter or charge, or one in which, having jurisdiction over the subject, it has failed to observe the rules prescribed by statute for its exercise.' Having found the relator to be guilty of two offences, the court was empowered by the statute to punish him as to one by fine and as to the other by imprisonment. The sentence was not in excess of its authority."
Cumulative sentences are not cumulative punishments, and a single sentence for several offences, in excess of that prescribed for one offence, may be authorized by statute. In re De Bara, 179 U.S. 316; In re Henry, 123 U.S. 372.
The offences charged under this article were not one and the same offence. This is apparent if the test of the identity of offences that the same evidence is required to sustain them be applied. The first charge alleged "a conspiracy to defraud," and the second charge alleged "causing false and fraudulent claims to be made," which were separate and distinct offences, one requiring certain evidence which the other did not. The
[ 183 U.S. Page 395]
fact that both charges related to and grew out of one transaction made no difference.
In Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, speaking through Mr. Justice Gray, then a member of that tribunal, held: "A conviction or acquittal upon one indictment is no bar to a subsequent conviction and sentence upon another, unless the evidence required to support a conviction upon one of them would have been sifficient to warrant a conviction upon the other. The test is not whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act, but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same offence. A single act may be an offence against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other."
The sentence, then, of fine and imprisonment was justified by the convictions of the first and second charges.
Finally, it is contended on this branch of the case that the offence under Charge III is the same offence as those under Charges I and II, called by a different name, and hence that the punishment of dismissal was illegal because a third punishment where but two offences were committed.
As heretofore said, dismissal might have been added to fine and imprisonment as part of the punishment, for either or both of the offences, under the first and second charges.
But the offence of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman is not the same offence as conspiracy to defraud, or the causing of false and fraudulent claims to be made, although to be guilty of the latter involves being guilty of the former.
Article 61 prescribes that "any officer who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be dismissed from the service," and Article 100, that "when an officer is dismissed from the service for cowardice or fraud, the sentence shall further direct that the crime, punishment, name and place of birth of the delinquent shall be published in the newspapers in and about the camp, and in the State from which the offender came, or where he usually resides."
[ 183 U.S. Page 396]
Article 97 is: "No person in the military service shall, under the sentence of a court martial, be punished by confinement in a penitentiary, unless the offence of which he may be convicted would, by some statute of the United States, or by some statute of the State, Territory, or District in which such offence may be committed, or by the common law, as the same exists in such State, Territory, or District, subject such convict to such punishment."
Confinement at hard labor in a penitentiary is prescribed by sections 5438 and 5488 of the Revised Statutes, section 5438 having been brought forward from the act of March 2, 1863, from which the 60th article was taken. (And see § 5442, Rev. Stat.; Act March 31, 1895, 28 Stat. 957.)
Conviction of Charges I and II was conviction of fraud, and Article 100 contemplates that the officer may be dismissed under Article 60 or under Article 61. Conviction of fraud under Article 60 plainly involves conviction under Article 61; and dismissal is as mandatory as degradation.
The contention that an officer convicted of crimes punishable on the penitentiary under Articles 60 and 97 cannot be so punished if he be also dismissed, or cannot be dismissed if he be so punished, is too unreasonable to be countenanced.
The result is that we are of opinion that the sentence cannot be invalidated on any of the grounds so far considered.
The fourth charge was: "Embezzlement, as defined in section 5488, Revised Statutes of the United States, in violation of the 62d article of war."
Section 5488 reads: "Every disbursing officer of the United States who deposits any public money entrusted to him in any place or in any manner, except as authorized by law, or converts it to his own use in any way whatever, or loans with or without interest, or for any purpose not prescribed by law withdraws from the treasurer or any assistant treasurer, or any authorized depository, or for any purpose not prescribed by law transfers or applies any portion of the public money entrusted to him, is, in every such act deemed guilty of an embezzlement of the money so deposited, converted, loaned, withdrawn, transferred, or applied; and shall be punished by imprisonment with
[ 183 U.S. Page 397]
hard labor for a term not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by a fine of not more than the amount embezzled or less than one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment."
Article 62 is:
"ART. 62. All crimes not capital, and all disorders and neglects, which officers and soldiers may be guilty of, to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, though not mentioned in the foregoing Articles of War, are to be taken cognizance of by a general, or a regimental, garrison, or field officers' court martial, according to the nature and degree of the offence, and punished at the discretion of such court."
The construction would not be unreasonable if it were held that the words "though not mentioned in the foregoing articles of war" meant "notwithstanding they are not mentioned," and that the article was intended to cover all crimes, whether previously enumerated or not. The reference is to crimes created or made punishable by the common law or by the statutes of the United States, when directly prejudicial to good order and military discipline. Our attention has not been called to any former adjudication of the particular point by the military courts, but we think it would be going much too far to say that, if a court martial so construed the words, and sentenced for a crime previously mentioned, the sentence, when made his own by the President, would be absolutely void.
Colonel Winthrop says, however, that "the construction of these words has uniformly been that they are words of limitation, restricting the application of the article to offences not named or included in the articles preceding; the policy of the provision being, as it is expressed by Samuel, 'to provide a general remedy for wrongs not elsewhere provided for.'" Vol. 2, p. 1126.
Accepting this construction, we are nevertheless of opinion that the specified crime was not "mentioned in the foregoing articles."
The first and fourth subdivisions of the 60th article of war provide that "any person in the military service of the United States who makes or causes to be made any claim against the United
[ 183 U.S. Page 398]
States, or any officer thereof, knowing such claim to be false or fraudulent," or "who, for the purpose of obtaining, or aiding others to obtain, the approval, allowance or apyment of any claim against the United States or against any officer thereof, makes or uses, or procures or advises the making or use of, any writing, or other paper, knowing the same to contain any false or fraudulent statement," shall, on conviction, be punished.
The specification under Charge IV alleged that the accused, as a disbursing officer of the United States, applied to a purpose not prescribed by law large sums of public money entrusted to him, for river and harbor purposes, by causing them to be paid out by checks on false accounts, the payment being accomplished by the drawing and delivery of the checks directing payment to be made of moneys of the United States, and thus withdrew by means of checks, from the authorized depository, moneys for an unauthorized purpose, and applied them to unlawful purposes. The application, coupled with the payment and withdrawal of the funds by checks, constituted the embezzlement defined in section 5488, while the specific acts set forth in subdivisions one and four of the 60th article were distinct from the acts prohibited by section 5488. By the charge, the particular offence was laid in general terms, and by the specification the facts constituting the offence charged were stated. The specification here set forth abstraction by fraudulent means of $230,749.90, and $345,000, moneys of the United States entrusted to the accused as a disbursing officer of the Government, but it was none the less malum prohibitum because it was also malum in se.
Nor are we persuaded by the ingenious argument of appellant's counsel that the crime alleged in this charge was covered by subdivision 9 of Article 60, because it was embezzlement of money "furnished or intended for the military service," § 5488, relating to the improper disposition of any public money. That subdivision denounces punishment on any person in the military service of the United States "who steals, embezzles, knowingly and wilfully misappropriates, applies to his own use or benefit, or wrongfully or knowingly sells or disposes of any ordnance, arms, equipments, ammunition, clothing, subsistence
[ 183 U.S. Page 399]
stores, money, or other property of the United States, furnished or intended for the military service thereof." Most of these enumerated classes of property are obviously military stores used for military purposes, and on the principle of noscitur a sociis all the classes designated fall into the same category. And this seems to be put beyond question by the words "furnished or intended for the military service thereof." The military service as used in this connection means the land forces or the Army. The fact that money appropriated for river and harbor improvements is disbursed by an officer of the Army and the work supervised by the engineer force in the service of the government, does not make the moneys so appropriated moneys "furnished or intended for the military service," as the words are used in paragraph nine. This was the view of Lacombe, J., in holding the sentence supported by the conviction of the fourth charge. 97 Fed. Rep. 496. The Circuit Court of Appeals, without questioning the correctness of that conclusion, did not consider the question, because it sustained the sentence under the conviction of the first and second charges. The Circuit Court for the District of Kansas concurred in the conclusions of each of the other courts. We are of opinion that officers of the Army are in the eye of the law on military duty, although employed as such officers under statutes of the United States in the public service on duties not in themselves pertaining to the Army, and that the moneys disbursed by them when so employed do not because they are such officers become money furnished and intended for the military service.
Illustrations are found in the administration of appropriations for the Indian service, the Light House service, superintending the Washington aqueduct, maintaining the public grounds about the White House, and the like.
The appropriations made for river and harbor improvements are per se for the benefit of commerce and navigation, and not for military or naval purposes, and the money is furnished and intended for public works in aid of commerce. In the exercise of the power to regulate commerce, Congress has repeatedly legislated in regard to the construction of river and harbor improvements in the navigable waters of the United States,
[ 183 U.S. Page 400]
and enacted rules in relation thereto. The money made the subject of the embezzlement in this case was appropriated to be expended under the War Department by the act of Congress of June 3, 1896, (29 Stat. 202, c. 314,) entitled "An act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes," and the act of June 4, 1897, (30 Stat. 11, 44, c. 2,) entitled "An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the government for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and for other purposes."
The status of Captain Carter was not changed by his detail to the charge of these improvements, and he was still subject to the military jurisdiction.
It is further argued that the specification was wrongly laid under Article sixty-two, because "the money was applied to a purpose prescribed by law," and "the crime charged 'was not to the prejudice of good order and military discipline,'" but the contention is without merit.
The fact that the vouchers purported to be issued as against the appropriations for the improvement of the Savannah River and of Cumberland Sound, if these vouchers were false and falsely certified to, and if the accounts on which the moneys were paid were false, "the moneys not being due or owing from the United States to the parties paid or to any one else, and he, the said Captain Carter, well knowing this to be the case," as stated in the specification, could not make the application of the money by that payment an application to purpose prescribed by law.
We should suppose that embezzlement would be detrimental to the service within the intent and meaning of the article, but it is enough that it was peculiarly for the court martial to determine whether the crime charged was "to the prejudice of good order and military discipline." Swaim v. United States, 165 U.S. 553; Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 178; United States v. Fletcher, 148 U.S. 84.
In Swaim v. United States, which involved a sentence under the 62d article or war, Mr. Justice Shiras, delivering the opinion, said: "But, as the authorities heretofore cited show, this is the
[ 183 U.S. Page 401]
very matter that falls within the province of courts martial, and in respect of which their conclusions cannot be controlled or reviewed by the civil courts. As was said in Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 178, 'of questions not depending upon the construction of the statutes, but upon unwritten military law or usage, within the jurisdiction of courts martial, military or naval officers, from their training and experience in the service, are more competent judges than the courts of common law. . . . Under every system of military law for the government of either land or naval forces, the jurisdiction of courts martial extends to the trial and punishment of acts of military or naval officers which tend to bring disgrace and reproach upon the service of which they are members, whether those acts are done in the performance of military duties, or in a civil position, or in a social relation, or in private business.'"
The case has been argued with zeal and ability, and it has received the consideration which its importance demanded. If these observations have been extended beyond what was strictly required, that should at least serve to show that no material suggestion bearing on the disposal of this appeal has escaped attention.
But we must not be understood by anything we have said as intending in the slightest degree to impair the salutary rule that the sentences of courts martial, when affirmed by the military tribunal of last resort, cannot be revised by the civil courts save only when void because of an absolute want of power, and not merely voidable because of the defective exercise of power possessed.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN did not hear the argument and took no part in the consideration and disposition of the case.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.