tion and specification of charges; (2) an ar rest for trial; held, further, that article 43 in the provision declaring that 'the person ac cused shall be furnished with a true copy of the charges, with the specifications, at the time he is put under arrest,' has reference to the arrest for trial, and not to the arrest in the first, instance." The court-martial in the case of Smith having been legally constituted, and having proceeded according to law and within its powers, the Court of Claims was without jurisdiction. (See dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Peele, Court of Claims, No. 21,636, decided April 22, 1901, on demurrer, 36
c. as., R, 328.) In the case of Johnson v. Sayre, supra, the Supreme Court said. "The provision of article 43 of the Articles for the Government of the Navy, which pre scribes that 'the person accused shall be fur nished with a true copy of the charges, with the specifications, at the time he is put under arrest.' evidently refers, t.s appears by the my next article, to the time when he 'is arrested for triar by (Mrt-marliol, and not to the time of an previous arrest, either by way f>f pun ishment or to await the action of a court of in quiry. Rev. Stat., sec. 1624, arts. 24, 43, 44, 56. Sayre, being already in custody to await the result Of a court of inquiry, could not be considered as put under arrest for trial by court-martial, before the Secretary of the Navy had informed him of the report of the court of inquiry, and had ordered a courtmartial to convene to try him. Immediately after that, and four days before the courtmartial met, he was furnished with a copy of the charge and specification on which he was' to be tried. This was a sufficient com pliance with the article in question. And it is, at the least, doubtful whether the objec tion that it had not been sooner delivered to him did not come too late, after he had ad mitted before the court-martial that he had received a copy of the charge and specifica
tion, and after objections to the jurisdiction of the court and to the form of the accusa tion had been made and overruled, and he had pleaded not guilty, and the evidence for the United States had been introduced. "The court-martial having jurisdiction of the person accused and of the offense charged, and having acted within the scope of its lawful powers, its decision and 'sen tence cannot be reviewed or set aside by the civil courts, by writ of habeas corpus or other wise." Xo civil court "has any appellate jurisdiction over the naval court-martial, nor over offenses which such a court has power to try." (Wales v. Whitney, 116 U. S., 168.) The sentence of a court-martial, when duly confirmed, "is altogether beyond the juris diction or inquiry of any civil tribunal what ever." With the legal sentences of com petent courts-martial "civil courts have nothing to do, nor are they in any way alter able by them." "If it were otherwise," it is add id, "the civil couits would virtually ad minister the rules and articles of war, irre spective of those to whom that duty and obligation has been confided by the laws of the United States, from whose decisions no appeal or jurisdiction of any kind has been given to the civil magistrate or civil courts." (Dynes,-'. Hoover, 20 How., 81, 82.) This ruling has been abundantly affirmed and illustrated in later cases. (Winthrop's Mili tary Law, Vol. I., p. 56.) -The Regulations of the Navy, Chapter XXIII., "Naval Administration and Dis cipline," provide amply for the protection of the rights of both officers and enlisted men accused of offenses against law and order. Article 1073 of said Regulations, as amend ed, provides: "1073. (I-) '" order to avoid unnecessary recourse to courts of inquiry and general courts-martial, it is directed that where an officer or other person shall be reported for grave misconduct to his immediate com
