Page:LA2-NSRW-1-0544.jpg

COURTS-MARTIAL case. The supreme court tries all cases concerning ambassadors and other ministers from foreign countries and all cases where a state brings action against another state or the citizens of another state or a foreign country. In these cases the suit is at once brought before the supreme court; but in other cases—which include, besides those mentioned already, cases that involve laws of navigation and controversies wherein the United States is a party—in all such cases the state-courts or lower Federal courts must try the matter first, and appeal may then be made according to the principles already mentioned.

The Federal courts do not create laws, and are bound even more strictly than state-courts to interpreting the law, viz., the constitution and the enactments of Congress, always preserving the sovereignty of the constitution. It is wrong to speak of the supreme court as superior to Congress, in contrast with the British courts, which are subordinate to Parliament. The difference is that in England the Parliament is superior to all authority whatsoever, there being no constitution to overrule it, while in America, Congress and the supreme court alike are subject to the constitution. Of course the will of the people is the final judge in both countries. At the same time, because the supreme court has the duty of interpreting the constitution, which needs a great deal of interpreting to apply it to all the changes of modern life, it has in fact a great deal to say as to what regulations shall govern us. For example, the constitution does not forbid, explicitly, a graduated income-tax; but the supreme court forbids it by its interpretation of the constitution. The constitution being difficult to amend, that interpretation, and nothing else, prevented at one time the collecting of such a tax.

In like manner the state-courts of every state have the power of interpreting the constitution of the state and of deciding whether the acts of the legislature and executive are in accordance with it. Whenever Federal or state-courts decide against the constitutionality of an act, it is void, as if it had never been passed or done. But it is the rule that where there is doubt in the matter, the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the act or statute.

 Courts-Martial, in their modern form, as regular tribunals set up by Congress or in minor cases by a military or naval commander, for the trial of offences against martial law or discipline in the army, navy or marines, date from an ordinance of Charles I, and are referred to in the first mutiny-act of William and Mary. Both in America and England there are several grades of courts-martial. In the highest or general courts, the more serious offences

and also all charges against commissioned officers are tried. Often, when evidence is to be gathered, courts of inquiry are set up for this purpose. These courts in America may summon witnesses upon oath; but in England they have no such legal powers. When sentence of death is decreed, it is usually by shooting. The old-fashioned drumhead courts-martial, held upon the field before passion had time to cool and before full evidence could be gathered, are no longer held. Summary courts may, however, be held, in America in the place of regimental and garrison courts, and in the British army chiefly to try offences committed upon active service abroad, when it is difficult to have the offenders tried in the ordinary courts. The more serious offences are never tried by such courts, which in the United States consist of but a single officer. Courts-martial have the defect that their members belong to one and the same class, and may have a special army or navy sentiment. In 1757 Admiral Byng was sacrificed by an English court-martial to popular clamor, and shot, having perhaps made an error of judgment in avoiding battle with a vastly superior fleet. Great public interest has recently been shown (1907) in the sentence of a company of negro troops to disbandment under martial law by President Roosevelt. In a court-martial the prisoner at present has much the same privileges of having an advocate, a right to reply, etc. as in the ordinary criminal courts. The judges are of equal or superior rank to the prisoner.  Cousin, Victor, founder of a school of philosophy, was born at Paris, Nov. 28, 1792. After finishing his studies he was appointed professor at the Sorbonne. He early began to write, and one of his first books, his translation of Plato, met with immediate success. His lectures drew crowds; his ideas, for the most part, were new to his hearers, bold, clear and beautiful in style; he also had a wonderful power in bringing together facts of history and philosophy so as to throw light on each other. He also took part in politics, and was one of the leaders of thought in Paris. So when his friend Guizot, in 1830, became prime minister, Cousin was made a member of the council of public instruction and also a peer of France. He also held other offices, and was a public man until 1849. His teachings have had great influence in Germany, England and America as well as in France. Among the best-known of his books are The True, the Beautiful and the Good and The History of Philosophy. He died at Cannes, France, Jan. 13, 1867.  Covenanters, a body of the Scottish people, including the greater part of the nation, who during the 16th and the 17th centuries bound themselves by Covenants