Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/615

 474

THE GREEN BAG

NOTES OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RECENT CASES COMPILED BY THE EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL REPORTER SYSTEM AND ANNOTATED BY SPECIALISTS IN THE SEVERAL SUBJECTS (Copies of the pamphlet Reporteri containing (nil report! of any of these decisions may be secured from the West Publnbiif Company, St. Panl, Minnesota, at i; cente each. In ordering, the title of the desired case should be given a* well ai the citation of rolume and pace of the Reporter in which it is printed.)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. (Discharge of Sol diers without Honor.) U. S. D. C., N. Y; — The case of New York in Reid r. United States. 161 Fed. Rep. 469, sustains the President in discharging "without honor " the soldiers of the TwentyFifth Infantry, and holds that the discharge, being in the exercise of his discretion, was not subject to review by the courts. The contract of the discharged soldier, complainant in the suit, was to serve "for the period of three years unless sooner discharged by proper authority." Such a contract, it is stated, was terminable by the government at will by an officer having proper authority. The fourth article of war, Rev. St., § 1342 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 945), provid ing that no discharge shall be given to any enlisted man before his term of service has expired, except by orders of the President, the Secretary of War, etc., confers the authority on. or recognizes it as existing in, the President of the United States. The article, it is noted, has remained unchanged since 1806, and clearly assumes that discharges may be granted before expiration of service. This decision is unquestionably right. The President, as constitutional commander-inchief, has the obvious executive power of re moval. Without such power always in reserve military discipline in emergencies would be lacking altogether. It is hardly to be ques tioned that over all civil officers the President, as chief executive, has the power of removal which must accompany a centralized adminis tration; but as to the military power as chief in command under the Constitution 'there can be no doubt. . B. W. ALIENS. (Expatriation of American-born Women.) U. S. D. C., Penn. — In re Martorana, 159 Fed. Rep. p. 1010, rejected the wife of the petitioner for naturalization, as being incom petent to act as a witness under Act June 29, 1906, requiring the vouchers to the petition to be citizens of the United States. It appeared at the hearing that Mrs. Martorana was born in the United States and had resided here all her life.

The court in determining her citizenship cites Act Cong. March 2, 1907, c. 2534, 34 Stat. 1228 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 381], providing that any American woman who marries a for eigner shall take the nationality of her husband, and holds that it settles definitely the citizenship of married women, and that by marrying aliens they become aliens, though continuing to reside in the United States. ATTACHMENT. (Hearing on Nominal Attach ment.) Maine.— The sheriff's return of a writ of attachment recited that he had attached a chip, the property of defendants. Upon the petition by the sheriff to amend the writ to allow the insertion of certain words, the defendants requested that there be a hearing and evidence as to what the sheritT in fact did, and that the sheriff give his testimony and they have an opportunity to examine him in relation thereto. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine decided in the case of Swift v: Hawkens et al., 69 Atl. Rep. 620, that a hearing as to the physical fact of attaching a chip as the property of defendants would be an idle ceremony. It was a legal fiction which could not be denied when stated in the return. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. (Disbarment.) Minn. —-The case of State Board of Examiners in Law v. Hart, 116 N. V. Rep. 212, is interest ing not only because of the subject matter of the decision but also on account of the manner in which the court rendering it was constituted. The proceeding was instituted for the purpose of having defendant disbarred because of certain alleged misconduct and disrespect toward the Minnesota Supreme Court. Defendant, who had been attorney for the defeated parties in certain litigation, wrote and addressed a letter to the Chief Justice by name and title in which he severely criticised the court for its decisions and in another letter to the Governor suggested impeachment of the judges for participation therein. Copies of these letters were given out to newspapers and parts of them published extensively throughout the country. In the letter to the Chief Justice three decisions were discussed and the following