discloses other difficulties which might have greatly prolonged the inquiry by the court, especially in open session. It is not always safe to argue upon military law from principles unquestioned in our courts of common law and equity. More than twenty years ago, the late General William T. Sherman wrote in his pamphlet on military law 1 : "It will be a grave error if, by negligence, we permit the military law to become emasculated, by allowing lawyers to inject into it principles derived from their practice in the civil courts, which belong to a totally different system of jurisprudence. "The object of the civil law is to secure to every human being in a community all the liberty, security, and happiness possible, consistent with the safety of all. The object of military law is to govern armies composed of strong men, so as to be capable of exer cising the largest measure of force at the will of the nation." (Page 130.) Military law is but one branch of the law enforced under the Constitution by the gov ernment of our country. It consists largely, if not chiefly, of a body of written statutes and articles and regulations, as well as of certain general principles derived from the experience of the armies and navies of the past. Some of its traditions have been greatly in need of principles derived from the practice of civil courts, and one result of the study of military law encouraged by General Sherman has been more study also of our civil and criminal law by officers of the army and navy than used to be common. One consequence of such study is improve ment in the practice of courts of inquiry as well as courts-martial. Among the merits of the practice enforced by the present Judge Advocate General of the Navy is the respect paid to what lawyers regard as clear and strict and sound practice, with regard to sticking to the points at issue, and adhesion to the rules of evidence so far as the wellinformed, reasonable military experts can ' Reprinted from the Journal of the Military Service Institution of the United States. Church, publisher, New York. 18S0.
adhere to them with due regard to the ne cessities of the service and the great discre tionary power of military courts. General Sherman elsewhere says : "This study must be pursued in hours of peace and leisure for, with us especially, wars come sud denly, when books are thrown to the winds, and every officer must carry his library in his head. That officer who knows his profession and has his mind stored with knowledge available in new and untried fields will surely carry off the palm." (P. 437.) It may be added that it is not only wars which come suddenly with us, to test to the uttermost the brains and the professional knowledge and character of soldiers and sailors. Important duties fall to the lot of officers of the army and navy in the two re sponsible tasks of passing official judgment upon the conduct of their comrades, and teaching young men what the conduct and the character of an officer should be. Re cent military books show that in military courts and schools the study of some of the work of great lawyers is now regarded as a part of the highest training for the army and navy. It has been urged with reference to the court's refusal to hear counsel of Admiral Sampson, that, without disparaging the judg ment of the recent court in matters upon which it made findings of fact and of opinion, it is fair to say that the chief weakness of the court as a whole, and of the presiding member in his dissent, was in not " allow ing lawyers to inject into it principles de rived from their practice in the civil courts." If, it is said, they had sufficiently considered such principles, the court might have appre ciated the fact that under the wide authority expressly given to them to grant to others than Rear- Admiral Schley, "like privi leges " to those granted to him, they were in a position requiring them to welcome, and not to exclude, Admiral Sampson as a party to the proceedings which he requested to take part in to protect his interests. They
