THE AMERICAN BASTILLE. Bv George F. Ormsbv. THE British Articles of War of 1765, "in force at the beginning of our Revolution ary War," provided in sec. 15, art. 17, 18, and 19 : "To the end that offenders may be brought to justice, we hereby direct that whenever any officer or soldier shall commit a crime deserving punishment, he shall . . . be put in arrest ... or imprisoned till he shall be either tried by a court-martial or shall be lawfully discharged by a proper authority. No officer or soldier who shall be put in arrest or imprisonment shall continue in his confinement more than eight days, or till such time as a court-martial can be con veniently assembled. No . . .guard . . . shall refuse to receive or keep any prisoner com mitted ... by any officer . . . which officer shall, at the same time, deliver an account in writing, signed by himself, of the crime with which said prisoner is charged." (Winthrop's Military Law (1896), Vol. 2, pp. 1465, 1466.) The present naval articles 24 and 43, sec. 1624 R. S. read : " No commander shall in flict . . . arrest or confinement . . . longer than ten days, unless a further period is necessary to bring the offender to trial by a court-martial. The person accused shall be furnished with a true copy of the charges, with the specifications, at the time he is put under arrest; and no other charges than those so furnished shall be urged against him at the trial." The near identity of these British and American views as to fair dealing, the an cient origin of the present naval law, are ob vious. Moreover, the British idea may be traced continuously, embodied in the "Massa chusetts Articles" of April 5, 1775, in the "American Articles" of June 30, 1775, of
September 20, 1776, and of May 31, 1786, for the Army. (Winthrop, Mil. Law (1896), pp. 1475, r483, 1500, 1506.) The stringent naval law first appeared in the Act of April 23, 1800. After this the next Army Arti cles, of 1806, made the duty of furnishing charges more imperative by (art. 80) having the requirement to " keep a prisoner " to de pend on "provided the officer committing shall, at the same time, deliver an account in writing, of the crime charged; " and by add ing (art. 82) that "every officer to whose charge prisoners shall be committed, shall, within twenty-four hours after such commit ment, make report in zuritingol their crimes, on penalty," etc. Thus there was no arrest with out the reason therefor, "charges," furnished to the accused or placed within his reach. Recently some seamen in the navy brought suit to vacate court-martial sentences pro nounced against them, on the ground that their trials were forbidden by this art. 43, sec. 1624 R. S. Investigation revealed the prac tice of furnishing only officers a copy of the charges upon which naval prisoners are held in jeopardy of perhaps death, while seamen may be confined for many months, ignorant of any precise accusation, with no written voucher in their possession to guard against alterations in the charges, beyond reach of writ of habeas corpus, with no assured right to coun sel, and liable, when wholly or partly innocent, to surprise, loss of witnesses, mistaken con victions (the prosecutor's evidence being alone secretly preserved under charges known only to the prosecutor), and imprisonment, still helpless victims, in the penitentiary, shut off even there by naval rule from any one who might aid them. (Navv Reg. of 1896, arts. 1039, 1034-1038, 1778. Compare Doc.
