FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259  
260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   >>   >|  
early English constitutional right to be protected from military law or molestation by the army, and the corresponding right of protection of one's person, or one's house, by force, if necessary. The right of law, even as against the military, has been anticipated in an early chapter; the right to try an officer, or even a soldier obeying orders, in the ordinary tribunals, for homicide, or for ordinary trespass, as when, in the Dorr rebellion in Rhode Island, a company of militia invaded a woman's house.[1] The constitutional principle against the quartering of soldiers upon private dwellings, and the limitations to the military power caused by the strict confinement of the use of the army to cases of invasion or insurrection, have been added by American constitutions. But most important of all is the supremacy of the common law; the grudging permission of military law even to the army themselves only by a temporary vote; for in England, the Mutiny Act must be passed annually, and in the United States, appropriations for the army and navy may not last over two years. It is these statutes alone that make possible the very government of the army, the enforcement of the contract of enlistment, and the condign punishment of deserters. [Footnote 1: Martin _v_. Mott, 12 Wheaton, 19.] For example, let us remember the Boston Massacre. Ten years before the Revolution, some turbulent men, mostly negroes, started a riot against British soldiers on what is now State Street (then King Street), and under the orders of the commanding officer the soldiers fired, and two or three men were killed. Yet although the colonies were already under military occupation, and their courts and legislatures more than unpopular with the home government, these British soldiers were tried for manslaughter and murder, not in England, but in the ordinary common-law courts of the Colony of Massachusetts. James Otis defended them and they were acquitted. The fact that a monument to Crispus Attocks, the negro, now stands on Boston Common, and that ten or twelve years later the British flag was expelled from Boston to seek refuge in New York, does not modify the significance of the incident. Some years since in a Pennsylvania strike a small company of militia, being attacked by a mob, were ordered to fire. They did so, and killed one of the striking rioters. It was found out which private had fired the fatal shot; he was indicted and tried for murder;
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259  
260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
military
 

soldiers

 

Boston

 

British

 

ordinary

 

private

 

Street

 

company

 

constitutional

 
government

courts

 

militia

 

orders

 

England

 

murder

 

officer

 

killed

 
common
 
occupation
 
unpopular

manslaughter

 

legislatures

 

started

 

indicted

 

negroes

 

turbulent

 

colonies

 

Colony

 
commanding
 

Pennsylvania


strike
 
incident
 

modify

 
significance
 
attacked
 
striking
 

ordered

 

acquitted

 
monument
 
Crispus

rioters
 

defended

 

Attocks

 
Revolution
 
expelled
 

refuge

 

stands

 

Common

 

twelve

 

Massachusetts