Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

because there is a bill already in the House of Representatives providing for the charities of this District, and this belongs in that bill, aud we struck it out for that reason.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Suppose that bill does not pass?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. It was concluded it would pass, of course. It is a bill providing for the hospitals and institutions here. There will be no difficulty about that. Mr. HARLAN. What is the objection to permitting it to stand in this bill as the House placed it in this bill?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. What reason was there for dividing them? Why should we act on them by bits? The House departed from the usual course of putting these charities in this bill and thought it best to provide for them by a distinct bill. If that is to be the policy, of course they ought all to go together, I submit, and for that reason the committee thought the charities had better be considered together and not divided, inasmuch as the House had adopted that policy.

Mr. HARLAN. If there is no other reason, I think it wiser to permit this to stand, for if all these charities are put in one bill, and each item should receive some opposition, the bill itself may fail, and this is an item that ought not to be permitted to fail, as it seems to me. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. But I hardly presume the Senator supposes that this is more deserving than the hospital for the insane, the lunatic asylum, and a great many other objects which I presume will not fail. I do not understand that there is any controversy about this, but it ought to go with the others.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think this clause had better remain in this bill; it will be safer. There is no controversy about it, and there may be a controversy in regard to the other bill.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to inquire if this is not the appropriation which has been made for several years to the Providence hospital?

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I think this is the Carroll hospital. I am told it is the same thing.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Is it in any other bill? Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. No, sir; it is in no other bill. But the reason the committee did not choose to consider it in this bill, was that all these charities for this District are proposed to be put into a separate bill now before the House, and we thought if that was so, it was hardly worth while to consider them piecemeal.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I think this had better stay in this bill.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It should go into some bill.

Mr. SUMNER. I move that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of executive busi

ness.

Mr. CONKLING and others. Let us finish the amendments to the bill.

Mr. SUMNER. We cannot finish them. I insist on my motion.

The motion was agreed to; there being on a division-yeas 18, nays 15.

PRINTING OF AMENDMENTS.

Mr. MORGAN. While the doors are being closed I ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to offer some amendments to the bill (H. R. No. 1100) to amend an act entitled "An act to regulate the carriage of passengers in steamships and other vessels, and for other purposes," which I ask to have printed and referred to the Committee on Commerce. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That order will be made.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. FOWLER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 581) to provide for the election of certain territorial officers by the people; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Territories, and ordered to be printed. Mr. HARLAN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S.

No. 582) to incorporate the District of Columbia Concrete Stone Company; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and ordered to be printed.

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. CLINTON LLOYD, Chief Clerk, announced that the Speaker of the House of Representatives had signed the enrolled joint resolution (H. R. No. 316) extending the time for the completion of the Northern Pacific railroad; and it was thereupon signed by the President pro tempore of the Senate.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

The Senate thereupon proceeded to the consideration of executive business; and after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened, and the Senate took a recess until half past seven o'clock p. m.

EVENING SESSION.

The Senate reassembled at seven and a half o'clock p. m.

ARMY RULES AND ARTICLES

On motion of Mr. WILSON, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 529) establishing rules and articles for the government of the armies of the United States.

The bill was read at length.

The first amendment of the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, was in article seven, line three, to strike out the word "and."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This is a mere verbal amendment, and will be considered as made unless there be objection.

The next amendment was in line two, article thirty-seven, to strike out the word "powers" and insert "power.'

[ocr errors]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This verbal amendment will also be made, unless there be objection.

The next amendment was in article forty-six, line eight, to strike out the word "delivering" and insert "delivery."

The PRESIDENT protempore. This amend ment will also be considered as made without objection.

The next amendment was in article eightynine, line eleven, to strike out the word "the" and insert a."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This verbal amendment will be made.

The next amendment was in the second section of the bill, after the word "articles" to strike out "of war;" so as to read, that the rules and articles by which the armies of the United States have heretofore been gov. erned," &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON. In lines eight, nine, and ten, of article eight, I move to strike out the words "the provisions of an act establishing rules and articles for the government of the armies of the United States," and to insert the word "law." This is in the oath of the members of a court-martial, requiring them to try the matter before them and administer justice according to law."

The amendment was agreed to.

66

Mr. WILSON. In the third line of article twelve I move to strike out the word common" before "laws;" so as to make it read: In time of war or public danger military commissions may be constituted, and shall have jurisdiction over all offenses and offenders against the laws of war not cognizable by courts-martial, The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON. In article seventeen, line fifteen, after the word "required" I move to insert "by the order constituting the court;" so as to provide in regard to courts of inquiry:

This court shall have the same power to summon witnesses as a court-martial, and to examine them on oath; but they shall not give their opinion on tho, merits of the case excepting they shall be thereto specially required by the order constituting the court.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSON. The word "excepting," in the clause last read, ought to be "unless." Mr. WILSON. Very well. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That amendment will be made, their being no objection.

Mr. WILSON. In line four of article fortytwo, after the word "of," I move to insert "or omission to perform;" so as to read:

Any officer who shall accept money or any other thing by way of bribe or gratification, on mustering any troops, or in signing the muster-rolls thereof, or in consideration of the performance of or omission to perform any other official duty, shall be cashiered.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON. After the word "foreign," in the fifth line of the forty-eighth section, I move to insert the words "or insurrection;" so as to read, "in time of war, civil or foreign, or insurrection."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON. In line six of article fiftytwo I move to strike out the words "between the ages of sixteen and," and insert "under the age of." The object is not to have any enlistment in the Army of persons under eighteen years of age. Children sixteen years old ought not to be enlisted.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON. In line eight of the same article I move to strike out "sixteen" and insert "eighteen," to conform to the amendment just made.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON. In article sixty-two, line two, after the word "foreign," I move to insert or insurrection."

66

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON. In line five of article eightyfive, after the word "President," I move to insert "pursuant to law," so as to read, "which are declared by the President, pursuant to law, to be in a state of insurrection or rebellion.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator from Massachusetts, I think, omitted the insertion of the words "or insurrection" on the twentyfifth page, in line four, of the sixty-eighth article. I think the words "or insurrection" should be inserted there, after the word "rebellion."

Mr. WILSON. The word "rebellion" is there, and I think that substantially amounts to the same thing. But the words may be put in if the Senator desires. They will not do any harm.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be made if there be no objection.

Mr. POMEROY.. On the last line of the twenty-sixth page, in the seventy-sixth article, the word "whatsoever' should be "whomsoever."

Mr. EDMUNDS. It is right as it is. Mr. POMEROY. "Whomsoever" would be better; it refers to persons, not to things. Mr. WILSON. The clause reads now:

If any officer or non-commissioned officer commanding a guard shall knowingly suffer any person whatsoever to go forth to fight a duel be shall be punished as a challenger.

I think that had better stand as it is.
Mr. EDMUNDS. It is right.

Mr. POMEROY. If the Senator thinks it is right, I will make no objection.

Mr. WILSON. I offer as an amendment, to come in as a new article, after article one hundred and one:

Any officer in the military service who shall be convicted by court-martial of gambling, shall be cashiered; and any officer having in his possession or being accountable for public funds who shall be convicted by court-martial of gambling or betting, shall be cashiered.

Mr. JOHNSON. What does the honorable member mean by gambling? Does he mean that any officer who, in his mess, bets a quar ter or half a dollar, or a dollar, on a game of whist, or any other game of cards, shall be cashiered? It would deprive officers of almost the only pleasure they have in time of peace.

[Laughter.] Besides, there are all sorts of bets. I understand that according to the amendment any officer who bets a dollar upon anything, is to be cashiered.

Mr. WILSON. No, sir; any officer who has the care of funds.

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand that; but they all have the care of funds, more or less. Mr. WILSON. No; it applies to paymasters and others intrusted with public funds, who shall gamble or bet, and be convicted by a court martial.

Mr. JOHNSON. Then if he bets at all on anything he is to be dismissed.

Mr. WILSON. By all accounts gambling is a very disastrous thing in the Army. It is carried to a great extent.

Mr. JOHNSON. I have no doubt it is bad out of the Army as well as in the Army; but "gambling" is a very comprehensive term. It may apply to the ordinary and common practice among officers of playing among themselves with small sums as stakes, or of betting upon a horse race, or betting upon a cock fight, which used to be common in the South, and I believe is now, to a certain extent.

Mr. CONNESS. I ask for the reading of the amendment.

Mr. WILSON. It is carefully drawn.
The amendment was read.

Mr. JOHNSON. The first part covers the second.

Mr. WILSON. No; the first part applies to an officer who has not the custody of public funds being convicted of gambling, and the second part relates to the case of an officer intrusted with the public funds being convicted of gambling or betting.

Mr. JOHNSON. That I understand; but what I mean to say is this: every officer who gambles according to the first part of the amendment is to be cashiered, and then the amendment provides that any officer intrusted with public funds who gambles shall be cashiered. He is just as much an officer, whether intrusted with public funds or not, and the first clause of the amendment embraces all officers, whether intrusted with public funds or not. I submit to the chairman of the Military Committee that, although it is very desirable to guard against gambling, in the criminal sense of that term, it would be very hard, by an amendment like this, to prohibit officers of the Army from betting among themselves, particularly in time of peace.

Mr. WILSON. Does the Senator think that paymasters and others intrusted with funds

obviate the objections and cover the whole ground of both classes of officers, and will also sufficiently define the offense to avoid the objection of the Senator from Maryland :

Any officer in the military service of the United States who shall be convicted by court-martial of gambling for gain, shall be dismissed the service.

Mr. FESSENDEN. What is a man to do who bets half a dollar on a game of whist? Does he gamble for loss?

Mr. FERRY. I suppose he bets for fun. Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like to have the word "gambling" a little more accurately defined, so that officers may know precisely how far they may go. I think there is dithiculty in leaving it without definition. I once heard a gentleman with whom I was riding say that he had not gambled any since he was eighteen years old; and as he was a gentleman with whom I became acquainted in this city, and whom a great many of us know, I was very much surprised, because he had the reputation of "playing high." The next day I happened to meet here in the Senate Chamber a gentleman who was very well acquainted with him, sitting not very far from me, and I remarked to him that I had heard this gentleman say so. Said he, "What, did he tell you he had not gambled since he was eighteen years old?" I said "Yes, he told me so distinctly." "Well," said he "he meant that he had not been into a gambling-house; and in that sense, I suppose what he said was true; but, as for playing cards, I bet fifty dollars a game playing whist with him every night." And yet he did not think he was a gambler.

Mr. NYE. He came out about even, prob ably.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Now, for the benefit of the Army, I should like to have the offense defined, so that they may know what is gambling, and what is not. All playing of any game for money, risking money, is perhaps in one sense, wrong, because it is dangerous; but I presume there are very few officers in the Army who do not amuse themselves with different kinds of games and small stakes. So undefined is this provision if you pass it, that if one officer finds that another officer whom he does not like is playing cards and making a small wager, he may complain of him, file charges, and a court-martial may be bound to find him guilty, not knowing what "gambling" was within the meaning of the law, and thus create considerable difficulty. Although I should be very glad if any mode could be devised by which the danger and difficulty to which this article refers could be obviated, I think the provision proposed is altogether too

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not object to putting the prohibition upon the paymasters. Mr. NYE. Why not simply say "paymas-general, and may lead to trouble in the Army. ters?''

Mr. JOHNSON. If it applied only to paymasters it would be a different thing.

Mr. WILSON. I would consent to a modification that no officer intrusted with public funds shall bet or gamble.

Mr. JOHNSON. I shall not object to that. Mr. CONNESS. I hope that this section will not be amended as now suggested. As I understand the language, it says that any officer convicted by a court-martial of gambling shall be cashiered. A court-martial will not convict any man of betting in the ordinary acceptation of that term.

Mr. JOHNSON. Why not?

Mr. CONNESS. The Senator asks why not. Because courts-martial are presumed to be and are composed of sensible men; and when the offense amounts to that degree of abuse that it will secure the attention of a courtmatial and a conviction by a court-martial, the officer is unfit for the service. Gambling has been and is now to some extent, it certainly has been one of the greatest abuses of the Army. It has been a common habit at the western posts, and it constitutes one of the objections to entrance into the Army. The Senator from Connecticut, I understand, wishes to prepare a substitute, and I yield to him for that pur

[blocks in formation]

I think the definition should be somewhat more accurate than it is.

Mr. FERRY. In the substitute I think the expression "gambling for gain" by the application of plain common sense will distinguish the offense intended to be stopped from ordinary amusements of officers in camp; and any dauger such as is suggested by the Senator from Maine is obviated by the language of the proposed substitute that the person charged must be convicted by a court-martial. An officer charged before a court-martial with " gambling for gain" I do not think could possibly be convicted under any circumstances which I can imagine, as courts-martial are constituted for the trial of officers, unless he were actually guilty of what all would agree was gambling so as to be pernicious in its example to his command. If such language as this will not reach the difficulty which now exists I do not know of any that will, and it is seriously true that the practice of gambling for gain is one exceedingly disastrous not only in its example to the command, but disastrous to the officers themselves. I have myself known paymasters that made it a habit when they came to pay off the troops, after having paid the officers to encourage gatherings for the purpose of gambling and win back from them half, three fourths, and frequently the whole of their pay. It does seem as if something ought to be done to reach

this evil. It seems to me that when you leave to the common sense of a court-martial of his brother officers the decision of the question whether the thing was that pernicious gambling for gain which all would agree should be prevented in a well-ordered command, you do avoid any serious risk of the evil consequences of ill-disposed persons preferring frivolous charges against officers who had been merely indulging in a harmless amusement.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut to the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. NYE. I do not understand exactly the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut. If a man gambles at all he gambles for one of two purposes. He does not certainly intend to gamble to lose; therefore, if a man wagers anything he wagers it to gain. Suppose an officer should bet upon the result of an election; suppose an oflicer of the Army should bet that my friend here on my left [Mr. HENDRICKS] would be elected President

Mr. FERRY. Betting is not in the substitute. Mr. NYE. Betting has been held to be gambling by courts of the highest authority in the country, and I do not think a distinction can be drawn between gambling and betting. If the honorable Senator wants to define it so as to proscribe certain games that shall be prohibited, that will be very well. But I hardly believe that the Army would hold together unless they had some little amusements. Take a western post where the snow for four or five months in the year ranges from five to twenty feet in depth. Cut off from the world, all by themselves, they play cards. They have not funds enough to make it amount to gambling, probably, in the sense of the term that my friend from Massachusetts would wish to prohibit; but still they gamble. They have got, perhaps, $500 in cash, and it changes hands five hundred times during the winter. It is a sort of excitement they will have, and they have no other. I do not believe that that is what the Senator from Massachusetts means to prohibit.

I do not see what the substitute offered by the Senator from Connecticut would amount to exactly. "Gambling for gain!" Nobody gambles for anything else. I do not profess to be an expert in the business, [laughter;] and my friend, perhaps, is more expert in it than I am; and he can tell when he ever gambled and did not gamble for gain.

Mr. FERRY. The Senator is making an assumption not to be supposed.

Mr. NYE. The Senator seems to be so familiar with it that he is able to see a distinction between gambling for gain and gambling for loss. If you gamble at all you gamble to gain. There is no doubt about that. No man ever made a bet that did not bet to win if he could. I do not know why this rule should be directed and held against Army officers any more than against officers in civil life here as Senators. In all well-regulated communities they have rules and laws against gambling. They define certain kinds of games and declare them to be illegal, and say they shall not be practiced, and a military officer would fall within such rule the same as a civilian if he practiced them. But I do not believe that it will be possible to carry out this law.

In the next place, it is about as hard work to manage an Army or a Navy as it is a choir of country singers. All sorts of little petty jeal ousies are got up. Here is a little oflicer who wants to get another one's place, and he will say "he gambled at Fort Churchill, in Nevada; he bet four shillings; he held a better hand in cards than the Senator from Massachusetts." [Laughter.] Well, sir, it was done harmlessly, nobody injured, the public funds did not suffer. He sleeps on it a month or two until this lin gering enmity is aroused, and then he has the officer court-martialed, and it costs the Gov. ernment two or three or four hundred dollars to try him when he had bet a half dollar; the officer is cashiered, and the little rascal that

has meddled with it is promoted as he knocks the one forward of him out of place. I know how easy these things are got up in the Army and in the Navy.

Mr. CONNESS. Have you ever been in the Army?

Mr. NYE. Yes, sir, I have been. Now, I hope the honorable Senator will give me the advantage of my experience. [Laughter.] I have never seen anything but what the honorable Senator knew more about than everybody else. [Laughter.] But I am glad there is one place I have been where he has not. [Laughter.] I know the enmity and the little cliques that are got up in the Army among officers. You never see them at a post in the West, a post on the frontier or anywhere, but what the lower officers are always quarreling with the higher. Adopt this provision, and they can get up little stories about gambling, and have courts-martial out in a snow drift, and the first thing a man knows he wakes up with his commission taken from him by some little fellow whose word you would not take under oath. I do not propose to submit honorable gentlemen in the Army to that liability to be injured. If the honorable Senator from Massachusetts wants to say that any paymaster of the Army that shall be found gambling at any game while he is acting in that capacity shall be cashiered I will vote for it.

Mr. POMEROY. And quartermasters. Mr. NYE. Any person of that kind; but to say that every officer of the Army who bets half a dollar on a cock fight or half a dollar or $100 on a horse race shall be liable to be court-martialed is nonsense. It is establish ing a rule for the Army that is established for no other class of society. I do not believe in singling out that class of men who are as honorable men as are to be found in other positions to be dealt with in that way. Therefore, sir, it was that I interposed in behalf of the officers of the Army that they shall not be subjected to the risk that will follow such a provision; and I hope as my friend near me [Mr. HENDRICKS] expects to be commander-in-chief of all the armies he will come to my aid on this important question.

Mr. WILSON. I have no practical knowledge of this matter. I never saw the inside of a gambling-house in my life, and never saw any gambling; but I remember that during all the years of the war the evils of gambling in the Army were manifest. Some officers to whom were intrusted the funds of the Government gambled, lost the money, and were ruined. Other officers in the Army not only gambled with their fellow-officers, but some of them even got so low as to gamble with the common soldiers, and many such persons were tried and dismissed the service during the war.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Under what law?
Mr. WILSON. I do not know.

Mr. FERRY. If it was gambling with a common soldier, I suppose they were tried for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentle

man.

Mr. WILSON. It is a fact. I have it from generals in the Army, officers high in rank. This very article was written on the suggestion of a major general, an officer high in the Army. Mr. NYE. He has probably lost.

Mr. WILSON. No, I think not. I do not know how much deference is to be paid to the opinions of chaplains, but I have received several letters during the present session and in past years from chaplains in the Army, saying that one of the most demoralizing things in the Army is gambling. I think, therefore, it would be wise in these new rules and articles to prohibit gambling. I supposed everybody understood what it meant. I am willing to take the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut, with the definition he has there given, "gambling for gain." That amendment says nothing about betting. I think we ought, at any rate, to do as much as will let it be understood that we prohibit gambling. As these officers are to be tried by officers I take it that no man will be punished unless he deserves it.

Mr. CONNESS. I do not know that my knowledge extends so far as described by the honorable Senator from Nevada [Mr. NYE] when he was up. According to my own estimate it does not. I do not even pretend to know as much of this subject as the honorable Senator. I think it would be double assurance in me to do so. But, sir, I am not in favor of gambling. I believe it to be one of the most serious vices to which human nature is addicted. The officer who learns it in the Army is unfitted for civil life thereafter, if he should see fit to leave the Army, for the habit once formed is very rarely overcome in life. I think gambling is worse than drunkenness as a habit. I think men will do more evil and wrong who are infatuated with that passion than perhaps under any other to which men are addicted.

I do not care whether we have gentlemen among us who like whist-playing, or who certainly have a high estimation of it, judging from their participation in the debate; but gambling may be done by playing whist, although it is not generally, because it is a long game, and gamblers generally seek shorter games. They want to get at the stakes more readily. But a man who should seek to avoid the law and play whist, and bet fifty dollars on a game, would certainly be engaged in gambling, palpably so. All communities protect themselves against gambling by passing laws against it and treating it as a contraband practice, one against morals and good conduct and order. It is our duty especially to do so, I think, in regard to the Army and Navy. They are public servants. They give their lives to a profession; and the interests of a nation often hang upon the conduct of a comparatively few of them, and perhaps a single one. If they are naval officers, and they acquire the habit of gaming, and then go into civil life and engage in the commercial marine of the country, and carry their habits of gaming there, they are often at their game when their ships go upon the rocks and great injury is done to property and society. I believe that the common practice of gaming ought to be prohibited in the Army; and, as suggested by the Senator from Connecticut, the determination of what constitutes gambling must be left to the courtsmartial. They will not certainly take cognizance of an ordinary game at cards, such as all persons, perhaps, or nearly all, certainly very many, engage in; but the habit of gambling, the proneness to bet, make wagers, should be stopped and prohibited, I think. I shall certainly vote for the amendment.

Mr. NYE. Mr. President, I by no means meant to say that the Senator from California knew more about gambling than I did, though I do not gamble. But ever since the world has been formed into society there have been laws and rules prohibiting gambling. There are laws prohibiting gambling in this city; and yet every officer in the city knows that there are gambling-houses here, and men gamble there almost for fabulous sums. My rule is not to pass laws that are not enforced and cannot be enforced, and I most especially object to leav ing it to any board or court-martial to determine what gambling is. The effect, if that were done, would be that one board would coustrue a bet into gambling, however trifling; another board would say that it was not gambling; and the rule meted out to officers for the offense, if offense it be, would be as different as the different boards who sat and pronounced judgment. No, sir; if we are to make gambling a crime especially applicable to the Army, define with great care and precision what shall constitute gambling. Above all other things, sir, I would not leave it to any board of officers with the prejudice incident to nature and to their employment to determine what gambling was; but they should go to the letter of the law and bring their judgment to square with the law itself. No, sir; the theory that because officers are to sit upon officers there is no danger of wrong being done I do not assent to.

Mr. FERRY. The Senator will allow me to suggest that courts-martial have to decide

over and over again what is conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and what is conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline.

Mr. NYE. Certainly. Then why not leave it in that way, and say that the court-martial shall have power, as I understand the Senator from Connecticut to say they now have—

Mr. FERRY. Not at all; I was making a parallel.

Mr. NYE. But I understood the Senator to say that officers had been tried to his knowledge. Mr. FERRY. For gambling with the common soldiers. I never knew an instance of officers being tried for gambling with each other.

Mr. NYE. I suppose they were convicted, if convicted at all, upon the charge of conduct unbecoming an officer, by indulging in too free intercourse with the soldiers over whom he had command.

Mr. FERRY. Conduct prejudicial to good order.

If

Mr. NYE. I can well see that that would be a good charge, and if I was sitting on a court-martial I think I would convict an officer who would do that. But. sir, that does not answer the objection, or if it does we need no further legislation on the subject. already officers are allowed to take cognizance of the offense as punishable by court-martial we certainly need no further legislation. And I believe after all, with a full appreciation of the high sense of duty of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, that he will find that any enactment on the subject will be but waste paper. I know that officers of the Army are men of high sense of honor, and if they find a fellow-officer gambling with either officers or soldiers, in a manner that would affect the discipline or good order of the Army, they would try him of that offense and convict him. Now, I hope that that being the case, as is admitted by men who know far more about these things than I do, the legislation will stand where it is unless whatever is proposed is very clearly defined.

Mr. CONKLING. I should like to hear the amendment read.

Mr. JOHNSON. I suppose the honorable member from Connecticut suggests his amendment as a substitute for the other.

Mr. FERRY. Yes, sir. I understood the Senator from Massachusetts to accept it as a substitute.

Mr. JOHNSON. That renders it, I think, less obnoxious than the original amendment proposed by the honorable member from Massachusetts. But it seems to me it would be a sufficient guard against the dangers which now exist to make the prohibition apply to officers of the Army who are intrusted with public funds. I think it would lead possibly to a great deal of bad feeling if the Army officers may be troubled to defend the crime by prosecutions for having violated the law if it stands even in the way suggested by the honorable member from Connecticut. I think we ought to prohibit any disbursing officer of the Army from gambling at all in any way. The temptation that gambling subjects him to very often leads him to hazard the public funds. Cases have arisen over and over again of loss to the United States consequent upon the gambling of. disbursing officers; but in relation to the other officers of the Army they hazard their own money, be it more or be it less; and I do not know that they have been subjected to any injury more than that which attends every other person who plays from time to time for money, whether he be in the civil or military or naval service. I should prefer, therefore, that the prohibition should be limited to officers who are intrusted with public money.

Mr. WILSON. I hope we shall have a vote. Mr. DAVIS. I would suggest to the honorable chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs that he limit the prohibition to officers who are charged with the custody and disbursement of public money.

Mr. WILSON. I will say to the Senator that I offered to do that, but some Senator objected.

Mr. DAVIS. I think that would be a wholesome provision.

Mr. FERRY. The Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Kentucky both seem to me to overlook the real object of any such article. The real object is not the protection of property; it is the protection of the service from the deleterious consequences of gambling among its officers. That is the object of the article; it is the object of almost all these articles; and it is agreed by all the testimony that we have that this practice is deleterious to the service, and being so, it has been thought advisable to suggest a proposition whereby the practice among the officers of the Army of gambling for gain, which is intelligible to the common sense, as it seems to me, of every one, should be prevented.

Mr. DAVIS. The honorable Senator from Connecticut I think attributes the effect as the cause. I do not think that gaming is the cause, but it is the consequence of a general demoralizing influence in camp life. During the late war one of the most gallant soldiers and colonels in the Kentucky service informed me that he was called to witness the death of one of his most esteemed soldiers, and when he got to it he found the brother of that soldier engaged in a game of cards and not paying the least attention to his dying brother whose immortal soul was about to take its flight to another world. It is the camp that prepares the heart and the mind of men who live in it for such practices as gaming and a devotion to gaming to the extreme extent to which that unfortunate soldier had it. There is nothing but idleness and vacuity in the camp in peace times; at least there is a great amount of it.

Men want to fill up their vacant hours, their idle time; and they do this by a resort to cards, and you cannot devise any legislation that will stop it. It is like drinking, but not so bad. I do not rate this vice as my honorable friend || from California does. I have known many gamesters to reform wholly; I have never known but one or two drunkards in my lifetime that did reform. The amount of evil in the world that results from drinking, to my mind, is, without calculation, greater than that which results from gaming, though they are both great vices, and productive, in a greater or less extent, of unmitigated evil. But the idea of having a provision of this kind in the articles of war that cannot be executed, that no man in the Army will have the disposition to execute, is to my mind very idle. I believe that a disbursing officer ought not to be allowed to game, and there ought to be rigorous provisions in the articles of war to prevent officers of that class from gaming.

Bank officers, merchants' clerks, who have access to money, paymasters, quartermasters and other disbursers of the public money ought not to be allowed to game if it is possible to stop it; and I admit the reasonableness of legislation or of an effort to legislate so as to stop it entirely; but when you lay down a gen. eral rule that an officer who is charged with gaming, or with gaming with a view to gain, because, as the honorable Senator from Nevada says, all gaming results from avarice and from a desire to win, to gain, there is no other gaming; but when you endeavor to suppress that in the Army by such a provision as is now under consideration, you attempt that which is utterly impossible, and that brings the rules and regulations of the Army rather into con. tempt than to effect. I do not game. I deem the evil and deleterious influence of both the vices to which I have referred. I would be very glad if they both could be eradicated, not only from the Army but from the world.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I think there is and ought to be a prohibition against gambling in the Army, and I think it should be one against common gambling, and not punish by so severe an infliction as dismissal from the service for a single offense, which may have been com

mitted thoughtlessly. That seems to me entirely too severe. I am quite willing to vote for a provision which shall strike at those who are addicted to the habit, and who are likely to demoralize others and spread a bad influence in the Army. As the provision now stands, however, a single deviation from high propriety might entail upon an officer the disgrace and injury of a peremptory dismissal from service.

It is idle to say that a court-martial will not convict a man unless the case is very gross. They are to try the officer upon specific charges setting forth specific facts.

If they find them they are bound to return the charges and specifications" found" and report that the officer is guilty. They have no discretion but a peremptory dismissal from the service. I think a law of that kind will not be enforced in many cases, and when it is enforced it will produce, perhaps, inconvenience and hardship in practical cases. I should therefore desire to vote for the provision changed so as to read that the offense shall constitute common gambling. There are blacklegs in the Army, as they are called; there are men who follow the practice of fleecing green people, whose delight it is to seduce the young and the foolish into this habit. I would strike with a severe hand at all these people and even at an officer of merit in other respects who sank down into a common habit of gambling; for the good of the public service I should permit him to be dismissed; but as now proposed this provision seems to be unreasonable and improper.

Mr. FERRY. I think in the suggestion which is made as to the penalty proposed by the substitute, the suggestion of the Senator from Pennsylvania deserves consideration; that possibly the limitation of the penalty to the single punishment of dismissal from the service is improper; and I would therefore modify the proposition by striking out the last words "be dismissed from the service," and substituting in lieu thereof "shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial shall impose, not exceeding dismissal from the service."

Mr. EDMUNDS. That is all right. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment as modified.

The amendment, as modified, was agreed to. Mr. WILSON. I move to amend the bill on page 39, article one hundred and four, line seven, by striking out the word "specific." The proviso to that article reads:

Provided, That no regulations or orders shall be made in conflict with the Rules or Articles of War, or with any specific act of Congress.

I think it is proper to say "any act of Congress."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WILSON. I have one other amendment to propose. It is to insert as an additional section the following:

And be it further enacted. That section thirty-seven of the act entitled An act to increase and fix the military peace establishment of the United States," approved July 28, 1866, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

I will simply say that in the act reorganizing the Army after the war, it was provided that the Secretary of War should prepare rules and regulations for the government of the Army and militia called into the service. These rules have been made. I believe there are over two hundred of them in number. They have not been reported to Congress; and these Articles of War provide that the Secretary of War or the President shall have the power to issue these rules and regulations. The object is to repeal that act requiring these rules and regulations to be submitted to Congress and enacted. It may be desirable to change them, and to change them often, according to the condition and circumstances of the country, and therefore it is proposed to repeal this law, so that these regulations may be issued by the War Department and modified according to their wishes, not inconsistent with the laws of Congress or with these Articles of War.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I doubt the propriety of that. The thirty-seventh section, which the

Senator from Massachusetts proposes to repeal, provides :

"That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, directed to have prepared, and to report to Congress, at its next session, a code of regulations for the government of the Army and of the militia in actual service, which shall embrace all necessary orders and forms of a general character for the performance of all duties incumbent on officers and men in the military service, including rules for the government of courts-martial. The existing regulations to remain in force until Congress shall have acted on said report."

Now, if you repeal that section and leave it to customary law, as it was before that act was passed, it reposes in the President of the United States the supreme control of the whole regulations of the Army, aside from these that are called the Articles of War. I am free to say that in the existing condition of things, I am entirely opposed to turning over to the President of the United States the law for the regulation of the Army.

Mr. WILSON. I have simply to say that all the regulations for the government of the Army have always been issued in that way, and this provision was put in the law of 1866 by the persistency of one gentleman. It was a great mistake at the time; and I venture to say that if the regulations are reported here we shall never enact them. It may, perhaps, just at this time be proper to retain that section of the law, I do not wish to press the amendment if Senators are opposed to it. But I will say that the Secretary of War is very desirous to issue the rules and regulations that have been prepared with a great deal of care and labor. I have no idea that if they are sent here we shall ever legislate on the subject.

Mr. JOHNSON. Congress alone has the power to prescribe rules and regulations for the Army--a power which I do not think they can delegate to the Secretary of War or to the President. The rules which have been framed by the officers of the Army may be very objeetionable in every way; and I more than doubt whether it is in our power, without a clear abandonment of the constitutional provision, to let the Army be governed by rules and regulations which have never received the supervision of Congress. If the Army has been governed in the past by rules and regulations prescribed by Congress, and will be governed for the future by the Articles of War which we are now about to establish, I do not see any necessity for prescribing other rules, at any rate for the few months that are to intervene between the termination of this session and the commencement of the next. I submit to my friend from Massachusetts that perhaps we have no authority to devolve upon the Secretary of War or the President of the United States the power to prescribe rules and regulations.

Mr. WILSON. Congress gave this power to the President and Secretary of War more than twenty years ago. Congress had legislated on the subject, but on the recommendation of General Scott Congress gave the power to the Secretary of War to issue his orders and modify and change them according to circumstances, and from that time up to the passage of the act in 1866, a period of twenty years, through the Mexican war and through the last war, rules and regulations by the authority of Congress were issued by the War Department and modified and changed according to the needs of the country. However, as I am anxious to get this bill through, I will withdraw the amendment to gratify my friend from Vermont, who, I know, will be exceedingly pleased to have it withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts is withdrawn.

Mr. THAYER. On page 29, article eightythree, I move to strike out all of the article after the word "rank," at the end of the third line, and to insert the words "according to the dates of their commissions." The words to be striken out are:

Next after officers of the like grade in said regular for ecs, notwithstanding the commissions of such

volunteer or militia officers may be older than the commissions of the officers of the regular forces: Provided, That this distinction shall not exist when said volunteer or militia officers shall have been in the service of the United States an equal length of time with the said regular officers.

So that the article will read:

ART. 83. Volunteer or militia officers in the military service of the United States shall, when employed in conjunction with the regular forces of the United States, take rank according to the dates of their commissions.

The amendment was agreed to.

such sentence other than imprisonment, or hard labor, or both.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BUCKALEW. On page 39, article one hundred and four, I move to strike out what follows the word "Army," in the second line. I do not care about striking out the proviso, and I suppose it will be unnecessary, The Chief Clerk read the clause proposed

to be stricken out, as follows:

And to amend the general regulations for the government of the Army, or make new regulations, as the circumstances of the service may require.

So that the article will read:

The President of the United States shall have power to prescribe the uniform of the Army: Provided, That no regulations or orders shall be made in conflict with the Rules and Articles of War, or with any specific act of Congress.

Mr. FERRY. The eleventh, fifteenth, sixteenth, and thirty-second articles prescribe to a certain extent punishments to be inflicted by the different classes of courts-martial and by the commanding officers of detachments when necessary. I judge by the tenor of the articles that it is intended that no other punishments than those named in the articles shall be inflicted; yet as the articles stand the same liberty of corporal punishment will continue as existed during the late war. I propose to amend these articles, of which an illustrationally will be the amendment to article fifteen, which provides:

No garrison, regimental, battalion, or detachment court-martial shall have power to try capital cases; nor shall any such court include as a part of its sentence upon any soldier a fine exceeding two months' pay, nor imprison, nor put to hard labor any soldier for a longer period than two months.

To that I propose to add:

Nor shall any corporal punishment be imposed by such sentence other than imprisonment or hard labor, or both.

I propose also an amendment in similar langnage to the eleventh, sixteenth, and thirtysecond articles, the principle of all being the same. The object which I have is this: flogging in the Army was abolished years ago; but during the recent war other corporal punishments, in my judgment infinitely worse than flogging, were inflicted upon the soldiers, both by order of detachment commanders and by these inferior courts-martial, and, as I think, invariably almost with an evil effect, such as tying up to the wheels of gun carriages, hanging up by the thumbs, inclosing in barrels like a pillory, and the like. Those things, in my judgment, should be stopped. I have therefore prepared amendments to each of these articles to accomplish that result; so that, under the Articles of War as now to be adopted, the punishments to be inflicted will be only in capital cases death; in other cases fine or imprisonment or hard labor, or a combination of some of the latter three, which is accomplished by adding to each of these articles the words which I have suggested. The first in order would be the eleventh article to add: 1 But except in capital cases no corporal punishment shall be imposed by sentence of a general court-martial other than imprisonment, or hard labor, or both.

Punishments not corporal, such as dismissal from service, cashiering, and fine, of course are not affected by the amendment. I move that amendment to the eleventh article, to be added at the end of the article.

Mr. WILSON. I hope that the amendment suggested by the Senator from Connecticut will be adopted.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FERRY. I now move to add at the end of the fifteenth article the following:

Nor shall any corporal punishment be imposed by such sentence other than imprisonment, or hard labor, or both.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is the same thing. Mr. FERRY. Yes, sir; it is all the same applied to these different articles.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FERRY. I now move to amend the sixteenth article by inserting after the word "month," in the fourteenth line, the words:

Nor shall any corporal punishment be imposed by such sentence other than imprisonment, or hard labor, or both.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FERRY. The next amendment is in the thirty-second article, to insert after the word "discipline," in the sixth line, the words.

Nor shall any corporal punishment be imposed by

Mr. BUCKALEW. This is the same question that was raised by the amendment that was moved by the Senator from Massachusetts and withdrawn. The power is given specificto Congress in words which are familiar to all the members of the Senate. power is:

The

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."

Obviously, this is a power to be exercised by Congress itself, and not delegated to the Secretary of War, the President, or any other authority whatever. If they require any new rules let them suggest them to Congress, and of course if they are reasonable they can get them enacted in a constitutional law. I think this clause ought to be stricken out."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I have no amendment in regard to the one hundredth article, but 1 take it to be a very indefinite and objectionable one.. It reads:

All crimes not capital, and all disorders and negleets which officers or soldiers may be guilty of, to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, though not mentioned in these Rules and Articles of War, are to be taken cognizance of by a courtmartial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and are to be punished at the discretion of the court.

I think that is a very remarkable article. It has no reference to the usages of war. There is no reference to the military principles which prevail in the administration of justice in times of war or in military operations. Everything is left indefinite and at the discretion of any court that may be convened. It seems to me this article ought not to be incorporated in the general code, and left to the administration of anybody who happens to hold a commission under the United States, with authority to convene a military court. I move to strike out the article, unless some amendment of it can be suggested.

Mr. FERRY. Why, Mr. President, I would inquire of the chairman of the committee if there is any article providing for the cog nizance of courts-martial over offenses to the prejudice of good order and military discipline besides this?

Mr. EDMUNDS. None at all.

Mr. FERRY. It is absolutely necessary in time of war to have this discretion, however dangerous it might be in time of peace.

Mr. BUCKALEW. This article also includes mere "neglects." It makes no reference to any military code or military usage. It leaves everything perfectly at the discretion of the tribunal in the case.

Mr. FERRY. But there is a military usage as well known as the common law by which courts-martial are guided.

Mr. BUCKALEW. But as this article is drawn it does not refer to it.

Mr. EDMUNDS. If my friend from Pennsylvania will pardon me, I suggest to him that that very article in totidem verbis has been in force for a period of sixty-two years. It is in these very words in the old Articles of War of 1800, being the ninth article there. It has not done any hurt so far.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Pennsylvania to strike out the one hundredth article. The motion was not agreed to.

Mr. DAVIS. I move to strike out the tenth article, which reads in these words:

No officer shall be tried but by a general courtmartial, nor by officers of an inferior rank, if, in the judgment of the officer appointing the court, it can be avoided, without detriment to the public service.

Now, sir, I should like to know, under this provision, how the General of the Army or the by court-martial? I suppose if those high offLieutenant General of the Army could be tried cers committed offenses deserving of punishment that they are the most proper of all subjects to receive it, and I think the honorable chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs ought to devise some mode by which a tribunal that would be competent to try both of those officers should be formed.

Mr. FERRY. The subject of this article, which has always been in the Articles of War, is to prevent a court being constituted of interested tryers, so that inferior officers shall not try their superior, and convict him, and rise and take his place. There is no difficulty whatever in trying the General of the Army, because in that case it would fall within the concluding clause of the article, whereby an an officer may be tried by officers of an inferior rank if it cannot be avoided.

Mr. DAVIS. Will the Senator read the provision to which he has just referred that provides for that?

Mr. FERRY. The concluding clause of the tenth article provides that a superior officer may be tried by inferiors, where the placing of inferiors upon the court-martial cannot be avoided without detriment to the public service. It is in the article itself.

Mr. DAVIS. I did not interpret it as my honorable friend does. It reads:

No officer shall be tried but by a general courtmartial, nor by officers of an inferior rank, if, in the judgment of the officer appointing the court, it can be avoided without detriment to the public service.

What does that mean? The language is obscure, I think, in its reading and sense. Suppose, now, the General of the Army was to commit a military offense for which he ought to be subject to a court-martial, who would be the officer that would direct the convening of a court-martial to try him?

Mr. FERRY. The President of the United States.

Mr. DAVIS. I suppose the President of the United States could direct a court-martial in any case and in every case. I think so because he is the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and he may do any and every act that a commander-in-chief of the British armies could do, according to my judgment of the Constitution. I do not think it is very well expressed; but if that be the meaning of article ten, that the President may order a court, be it so. I will withdraw that motion; and I ask the hon. orable Senator's attention to another objection which I take. Article twelve provides for military commissions, and it gives the military commissions more authority than it does the regular courts-martial. Article six provides for courts martial as follows:

Any general officer commanding an army in the field, or other officer not below the grade of colonel commanding a geographical division, a department, or district, may appoint general courts-martial whenever necessary. But no sentence of any court-martial shall be carried into execution until after the whole proceedings shall have been laid before the officer ordering the same, or his successor in office.

Now, I ask the attention of the honorable Senator to this part of the article:

Neither shall any sentence of a general court-martial in time of peace, extending to the loss of life or the dismissal of an officer, or which shall, either in time of peace or war, respect a general officer, be carried into execution until after the whole proceedings shall have been transmitted to the Judge Advoeate General, to be laid before the Secretary of War for the orders of the President of the United States in the case.

Article twelve provides for military commissions, as follows:

In time of war or public danger military commissions may be constituted, and shall have jurisdiction over all offenses and offenders against the common laws of war not cognizable by courts-martial. Such courts shall be appointed in the same manner and by the same authority; shall consist of the like

« PoprzedniaDalej »