Not Like The French Courts

NOT LIKE THE FRENCH COURTS

Major Kirk Tells of the U. S. Court Martials

METHOD OF PROCEDURE

Stump Speeches Tabooed and No Such Scenes as in Dreyfus Trial.

Anent the termination of the Dreyfus court martial today and the strange stuff brought before the court and by courtesy called evidence, Major John P. Kirk this morning talked interestingly concerning the methods of a court martial in this country. It appears that in France any person who desires to make a stump speech under the guise of evidence is permitted to do so. Here a court martial is held down pretty closely to rules of evidence although the court is given great latitude as to what it will admit or will not admit.

A court martial here is composed of not less than five or more than 13 officers, and is not ordered by an officer lower than a colonel and generally an officer of higher rank. When the court organizes the officer highest in rank of those composing the court takes his place at the head of the table and is the president of the court. The member next in rank seats himself on the side of the table at the president's right and the member next in rank at the left and so on. The judge advocate is stationed at the other end of the table. Witnesses are examined after the manner of examining witnesses in a civil court. The judge advocate represents the defendant as well as the people the idea being that all connected with the court are educated gentlemen and disposed to do no injustice. The accused is also entitled to an attorney. The president decides all questions for the court but an appeal may be taken from his decision on any point in which case the court arises, the room being cleared by the judge advocate and then the members of the court give their individual views on the matter in dispute.

When the evidence is all in two ballots are taken one on the charge and the other on the specifications. A court martial has the power to change the charge and substitute something else and likewise to change the specifications when the facts brought out warrant.

When the punishment of an offender is being determined the following method of procedure is followed: Each member writes his view as to what the punishment should be on a slip of paper. If there is no agreement, and there is scarcely likely to be any, the lowest or least punishment named on any ballot is taken and voted on. If a majority do not agree on this, then the next lowest punishment is voted on and so on until an agreement by at least a majority is obtained. So the punishment finally meted out to the person convicted may be the punishment originally considered adequate by only one member. The balloting is in secret and when a verdict is reached that also remains secret and is sent to the reviewing authority which is the officer ordering the court. It may also go for review to the commander of the army and the president of the United States. There are many other interesting features of trials by court martial but the limits of this article do not permit reference to them. From what Major Kirk says it is evident that the court martial which has tried Dreyfus has not limited itself by any such rules of evidence as prevail in an American court martial.