1 [C. M. O. 4—1918] ammunition, do not constitute sufficient grounds for a reasonable belief on the part of another that he is in such imminent danger of bodily harm that he is Justified in attacking in self-defense. To invoke the doctrine of self-defense, an accused must show that there was some actual attempt or offer to do bodily harm, or that his act of self-defense was preceded by an outward or material assault. Words or threats alone are not sufficient to provoke in return an act of legitimate self-defense (File 26251-13993). SPECIFICATIONS: FORM OF, WHERE TRIAL IS IN JOINDER. In a recent case, the specification of a charge against a single accused was laid as set forth under the second sample specification on page 117, Naval Courts and Boards, 1917. Said form of specification should be used only when the persons accused are tried in joinder. But the use of said form when only one accused is tried, is not so irregular as to render the specification fatally defective. The same comment applies with equal force to the first specification laid under the charge of sodomy set forth on page 123, Naval Courts and Boards, 1917 (File 26262-3850). [P. 18] ADDITIONAL PAY: FOR PERFORMANCE OF SPECIAL DUTIES ON RECEIVING PIER. A question arose as to whether or not an enlisted man of the Navy detailed as tailor on Commonwealth Pier, Boston, Mass., could receive the extra pay allowed a ship's tailor under article 4427, paragraph 21, U. S. Navy Regulations, and General Order No. 186 of 1905, on which said article was based. This office was of the opinion that such pay could not be allowed (File 26806-146, J. A. G., Aug. 16, 1917). It was then suggested that the above, being Executive orders, might be changed by the President. As the question involved pay, it was submitted to the Comptroller of the Treasury, who, on December 28, 1917 (File No. 26806-145: 5, Dec. of Comp.), decided that the act of May 13, 1908, establishing rates of pay for enlisted men, including those establishing rates of additional compensation for the performance of duties such as ship's tailors, gun pointers, etc., made said provision statutory, so that neither the rates of compensation nor the conditions under which the compensation may be paid can now be altered by Executive orders (File 26806-146: 1, J. A. G., Jan. 7, 1918). COMPULSORY ALLOTMENT PAY: MAY NOT BE FORFEITED BY COURTS MARTIAL. It is the opinion of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance that that portion of pay of enlisted men which is, by compulsory allotment under the amendatory act of October 6, 1917, set aside for members of class A, is beyond the power of court martial to forfeit, and that the compulsory allotment shall continue to be paid notwithstanding that the enlisted man has been sentenced by court martial to forfeit all his pay for a specified period (File 28909-64: 1). MARINE OFFICERS: AUTHORITY OF-TO CONVENE COURTS MARTIAL WHEN EM- The act of August 29, 1916, as set forth on page 19, General order No. 231, provides as follows: "When a force of marines is embarked on a naval vessel, or vessels, as a separate organization, not a part of the authorized complement thereof, the authority and powers of the officers of such separate organization of marines shall be the same as though such organization were serving at a navy yard on shore, but nothing herein shall be construed as impairing the paramount authority of the commanding officer of any naval vessel over the vessel under his command and all persons embarked thereon." [C. M. O. 4-1918] Marine officers convening courts martial in conformity with the above, shall show that they are legally empowered to convene said courts by signing themselves thus: [P. 19] (a) At the beginning of the precept: From: Commanding Officer, Provisional Brigade, embarked upon and not a part of the authorized complement of the U. S. S. (b) In approving the proceedings, findings, and sentence: A B C --- U. S. Marine Corps, Commanding Provisional Brigade, embarked upon and not a part of authorized complement of U. S. S. (File 26287-3262, Sec. Nav., Jan. 24, 1918.) OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE: AUTHORITY OF, TO RETAIN PERSONS OF NAVY IN HOSPITAL. The question recently arose as to the authority of officers of the Public Health Service to retain enlisted men of the Navy in a U. S. Marine Hospital, against the will of said enlisted men. It was held in accordance with the opinion of the Judge Advocate General of April 7, 1917 (File 28092-21), Court Martial Order No. 32, 1917, that persons in the naval service could not be so retained as a matter of punishment. But that where an enlisted man of the Navy has, by competent authority, been ordered to treatment in a U. S. Marine Hospital, he has no more legal right to leave that hospital without proper permission than he has to so leave any other place to which he has been lawfully assigned; and should an enlisted man under the circumstances stated, unlawfully absent himself, he would be guilty of absence without leave or desertion as the case may be; and upon full report of the facts in the case by the public health officer to the commanding officer of the offender, it is believed that said offender could be appropriately punished by his commanding officer, or by court-martial proceedings. In the ordinary case of Navy patients at a Marine hospital, it would appear desirable and proper that they be informed that any misconduct on their part, warranting disciplinary action, will be reported to their commanding officer. In any case where a person in the naval service absents himself from such hospital without permission from proper authority, immediate report of all the facts in the case should be made to his commanding officer in order that steps may be taken for his apprehension (File 28092-21:3, J. A. G., Jan. 16, 1918). PERJURY: PUNISHMENT for, during PERIOD OF WAR. Under article 22 of the Articles for the Government of the Navy, which provides that "all offenses committed by persons belonging to the Navy which are not specified in the foregoing articles shall be punished as a court martial may direct," perjury may be punished without limitation during the period of the war; with the exception, of course, of the general limitation contained in article 50 of Articles for the Government of the Navy (File 26806-151, Sec. Nav., Jan. i4, 1918). RECORDS OF COURTS MARTIAL: PARTS OF, MAY NOT BE ERADICATED. A person who had been dishonorably discharged from the Navy, desired to have the sentence of the general court martial, by which he was convicted of absence without leave, eradicated, so that he [P. 20] might be in a position to again accept service with the United States forces, and eliminate the stain from his record. He was informed that the Department knew of no method by which the sentence could be eradicated, but that the record had become part of the Department's records which should remain inviolate and not changed (File 24413-5). The record must correctly show the true facts of the case (File 7675-214). See also Naval Digest, 1916, page 513. But, he was also informed that, in his par [C. M. 0.5-1918] ticular case (he having seen service with the Allies in France), the Department knew of no bar, legal or otherwise, to his reentering the naval service (File 26282-332, Sec. Nav., Jan. 11, 1918). STRAGGLERS AND DESERTERS: SURRENDER AND DELIVERY OF, AT RECRUITING STATIONS. "Paragraph 5 of the notes, General Order 110 (revised July 1916), is hereby canceled and recruiting stations are authorized, under such instructions as may be issued by the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation and the Major General Commandant, to accept the surrender or delivery of stragglers or deserters and to furnish them necessary transportation and subsistence (File 26516-144: 65, Sec. Nav., Jan. 5, 1918). C. M. 0.5-1918 [P. 1] Captain Victor Blue, U. S. Navy, was tried by general court martial on November 30, 1917, on board the U. S. S. Minnesota, by order of the Commander in Chief, U. S. Atlantic Fleet, and found guilty of the following charge: Charge. Through negligence suffering a vessel of the Navy to be stranded (five specifications). SENTENCE "The court therefore sentences him, Captain Victor Blue, U. S. Navy, to lose twenty (20) numbers in his grade." RECOMMENDATION TO CLEMENCY The following unanimous recommendation to clemency was spread upon the record: "In consideration of his previous excellent record, we recommend Victor Blue, captain, U. S. Navy, to the clemency of the reviewing authority." ACTION OF THE CONVENING AUTHORITY The convening authority on December 8, 1917, placed the following endorse ment on the record in the foregoing case: "The proceedings, findings, and sentence of the general court martial in the foregoing case of Captain Victor Blue, U. S. Navy, are approved. "It is apparent that there was no conscious negligence on the part of Captain Blue, as the testimony clearly indicates that he is zealous and conscientious in the performance of duty. In the case resulting in this court martial the negligence consisted principally in placing too great reliance on his navigation officer. Under present methods of promotion, a sentence of loss of numbers may be considered as merely indicative of the measure of the seriousness of the offense. The real punishment is found in the fact that the officer's record will show his court martial and sentence. In consideration of the above and the unanimous recommendation for clemency by the court, the sentence is reduced to the loss of ten numbers in his grade. "Captain Victor Blue, U. S. Navy, having been released from arrest under the provisions of article 1417 (4), U. S. Navy Regulations, 1913, is hereby unconditionally restored to duty." CONCURRENCE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY The record in the foregoing case was submitted to the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, who, in view of the excellent record of Captain Victor Blue and the unanimous recommendation [P. 2] to clemency, concurred in the action taken by the convening authority. The Secretary of the Navy concurs in the action taken by the convening authority and the views expressed by the convening authority and the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation. [C. M. O. 11-1918] C. M. O. 10-1918 [P. 1] Lieutenant-Commander James B. Gilmer, U. S. Navy, was tried by general court martial on January 30, 1918, on board the U. S. S. Virginia, by order of the Commander, Battleship Force One, United States Atlantic Fleet, on the following charge: Charge.-Drunkenness (one specification). FINDING The court acquitted the accused of the charge. ACTION OF THE CONVENING AUTHORITY The convening authority on February 4, 1918, approved the proceedings, finding, and acquittal of the general court martial in the foregoing case of Lieutenant Commander James B. Gilmer, U. S. Navy, subject to remarks concerning irregularities in the record and errors of the court. The accused having been temporarily released from arrest and restored to duty in accordance with Navy Regulations, 1913, R-1410, on February 3, 1918, in order to return to his station and duty, it was further directed that he be released from arrest and restored to duty. REMARKS The following, among other remarks, was noted by the convening authority: A ruling by the court that "questions by the court were not open to objection by the accused or his counsel" is erroneous (Naval Digest, 1916, p. 649, last paragraph of "Witnesses (40)"). C. M. O. 11-1918 [P. 1] Lieutenanţ (junior grade) Arthur H. Gould, U. S. Naval Reserve Force, was tried by general court martial on January 11, 1918, on board the U. S. S. Panther, by order of the Commander, Patrol Force, U. S. Atlantic Fleet, on the following charges: Charge I-Assault (one specification). Charge II.-Drunkenness (one specification). Charge III-Using abusive, obscene, and profane language (one specification). Ch Je IV. Scandalous conduct tending to the destruction of good morals (one specification). FINDINGS The court found the specification of the first charge "proved," and the accused "guilty" of the first charge; the specification of the second charge "proved," and the accused "guilty" of the second charge; the specification of the third charge "proved in part," and the accused of the third charge "guilty in a less degree than charged, guilty of using obscene and profane language"; the specification of the fourth charge "proved," and the accused "guilty" of the fourth charge. SENTENCE "The court therefore sentences him, Lieutenant (junior grade) Arthur H. Gould, United States Naval Reserve Force, to be dismissed from the United States Naval Reserve Force and to be imprisoned in such prison or penitentiary as the convening authority may designate for a period of five (5) years." ACTION OF THE CONVENING AUTHORITY On January 15, 1918, the convening authority placed the following endorsement on the record in the foregoing case: "The record of proceedings of the general court martial in the foregoing case of Lieutenant (junior grade) Arthur H. Gould, United States Naval [C. M. 0.14-1918] Reserve Force, discloses that the trial of this officer was conducted most carefully and the accused given every opportunity for proper defense. The court found the accused guilty of 'Drunkenness,' 'Assault,' 'Using abusive and profane language,' and 'Scandalous conduct tending to the destruction of good morals.' These offenses, serious [P. 2] at any time, were most reprehensible in this case, because they were committed in a foreign country aflied with our own in the conduct of a great war, and under circumstances making it incumbent upon all officers and men to avoid every possibility of criticism or friction. "In a degree the excellent relations attending the cooperation of the two branches of our armed forces engaged on foreign service is likely to suffer by the actions of the accused, whose remarks were addressed to an officer of the United States Army, and who by his conduct has not alone demonstrated his irresponsibility and unfitness to continue as an officer in the United States naval service, but he has brought discredit upon the uniform which he was entitled to wear and lessened the good repute of our forces in a foreign land. "The proceedings, findings, and sentence of the general court martial in the foregoing case of Lieutenant (junior grade) Arthur H. Gould, United States Naval Reserve Force, are approved, and the naval prison, Portsmouth, N. H., is designated as the place for the execution of so much of the sentence as relates to confinement, and, in conformity with article 53 of the Articles for the Government of the Navy, the record is respectfully referred to the Secretary of the Navy for transmission to the President." ACTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY The record in the foregoing case was referred to the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, who concurred in the action taken by the convening authority. In conformity with article 53 of the Articles for the Government of the Navy (section 1624 of the Revised Statutes), the record of proceedings of the general court martial in the foregoing case of Lieutenant (junior grade) Arthur H. Gould, U. S. Naval Reserve Force, was submitted to the President of the United States, with the recommendation that the sentence be confirmed. ACTION OF THE PRESIDENT On February 21, 1918, the President of the United States confirmed the sentence of the court in the foregoing case. C. M. O. 14-1918 [P. 1] Machinist Clement S. Whittington, U. S. Naval Reserve Force, was tried by general court martial on January 18, 1918, at the Navy Yard, Norfolk, Va., by order of the Secretary of the Navy, on the following charges: Charge 1.-Absence from station and duty after leave had expired (one specification). Charge II-Absence from station and duty without leave (one specification). Charge III.-Falsehood (one specification). Charge IV. Conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline (one specification). FINDINGS The court found the specification of the first charge "proved by plea," and the accused "guilty" of the first charge; the specification of the second charge "proved by plea," and the accused "guilty" of the second charge; the specification of the third charge "not proved," the accused "not guilty" of the third charge, and acquitted the accused of the third charge; the specification of the fourth charge "proved by plea," and the accused "guilty" of the fourth charge. SENTENCE "The court therefore sentences him, Clement S. Whittington, machinist, United States Naval Reserve Force, to be dismissed from the United States naval service." |