Oberlin Carter v. Captain Benjamin Roberts

Decision Date23 April 1900
Docket NumberNo. 570,570
Citation20 S.Ct. 713,177 U.S. 496,44 L.Ed. 861
PartiesOBERLIN M. CARTER, on the Petition of Abram J. Rose, Appt. & Plff. in Err. , v. CAPTAIN BENJAMIN K. ROBERTS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Abram J. Rose and Benjamin F. Tracy for Carter.

Solicitor General Richards for Roberts.

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:

Carter was a captain of the United States Army, assigned to the corps of engineers. He was arraigned and tried before a court martial in Savannah, Georgia, convened according to law, upon certain charges and specifications; found guilty; sentenced to dismissal; to suffer a fine; to be imprisoned; and to publication of crime and punishment. This sentence was approved by the Secretary of War and confirmed by the President of the United States, September 29, 1899, and the Secretary of War took the necessary action for the execution of the sentence. October 2, 1899, Carter obtained from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York a writ of habeas corpus, directed to the military authority having him in custody, for his production before the court, together with the time and cause of his detention. He was accordingly produced, and due return made, setting up that he was lawfully held in custody by authority of General Orders No. 172, of September 29, 1899. During the pendency of the habeas corpus proceedings the fine imposed was paid. The circuit court dismissed the writ, and Carter was remanded to custody. 97 Fed. Rep. 496.

From this final order, as appears from the records of this court, and is conceded, petitioner prosecuted an appeal to the United States circuit court of appeals for the second circuit. The case having been there heard, that court, on January 24, 1900, entered judgment affirming the judgment of the circuit court, with costs. On February 5, 1900, an application for the writ of certiorari to the circuit court of appeals was made to this court, which, on February 26, 1900, was denied. 176 U. S. 684, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1026, 44 L. ed. ——.

On the same day an appeal from the final order of the circuit court directly to this court was allowed by a judge of the circuit court, as also a writ of error.

The 8th section of art. 1 of the Constitution provides that the Congress shall have power 'to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,' and in the exercise of that power Congress has enacted rules for the regulation of the army known as the Articles of War. Rev. Stat. § 1342. Every officer, before he enters on the duties of his office, subscribes to these articles, and places himself within the power of courts martial to pass on any offense which he may have committed in contravention of them. Courts Martial are lawful tribunals, with authority to finally determine any case over which they have jurisdiction, and their proceedings, when confirmed as provided, are not open to review by the civil tribunals, except for the purpose of ascertaining whether the military court had jurisdiction of the person and subjectmatter, and whether, though having such jurisdiction, it had exceeded its powers in the sentence pronounced.

The ground for an appeal directly to this court is said in the briefs to be that the case involved the construction or application of the Constitution, in that by the sentence petitioner was twice punished for the same offense. But if the statutes authorized the penalties in question to be inflicted in one and the same proceeding as punishment for the offenses charged, then there was no double punishment. And, as this was a case arising in the land forces, it is hardly to be conceded that the suggested constitutional objection was raised below as such by the bare averment in the petition that petitioner, having suffered the punishment of dismissal and of publication, his 'imprisonment is without authority of law,' and 'his further punishment and detention,' and 'the carrying out of said sentence, is contrary to law and the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and is illegal.'

The circuit court stated the questions thus: 'The contention of the relator is that, conceding that the court martial had jurisdiction of the person of the accused and of the offenses charged, and conceding, further, the regularity of its proceeding and the propriety of its findings, it was without power to impose the four separate punishments of dismissal, fine, imprisonment, and degradation (special publication of sentence), although it might have imposed either one of them. When application was made for the writ, it appeared that the first punishment (dismissal from the service of the United States) and the fourth (publication of sentence) had been carried out; and the relator contended that, having thus paid a penalty which the court had power to inflict, he could not be held to submit to another pen- alty, which the court had no power to add to the one already by it selected. Since the return was made the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Crowell v. Benson Crowell v. Same
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1932
    ...and whether, though having such jurisdiction, it had exceeded its powers in the sentence pronounced.' Carter v. Roberts, 177 U. S. 496, 498 20 S. Ct. 713, 44 L. Ed. 861; Grafton v. United States, 206 U. S. 333, 347, 27 S. Ct. 749, 51 L. Ed. 1084, 11 Ann. Cas. 640. As Congress did not provid......
  • Stolte v. Laird
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • December 22, 1972
    ...U.S. 1, 41, 63 S.Ct. 2, 87 L.Ed. 3 (1942). 53 See Dynes v. Hoover, 61 U.S. (20 Hw.) 65, 15 L.Ed. 838 (1858); Carter v. Roberts, 177 U.S. 496, 20 S.Ct. 713, 44 L.Ed. 861 (1900); Reaves v. Ainsworth, 219 U.S. 296, 304, 31 S.Ct. 230, 55 L.Ed. 225 54 Cf. United States v. Priest, 21 U.S.C. M.A. ......
  • United States v. Ford
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • August 18, 1986
    ...the law military. Furthermore, they are supreme while acting within the sphere of their exclusive jurisdiction. Carter v. Roberts, 177 U.S. 496, 20 S.Ct. 713, 44 L.Ed. 861 (1900); Rose ex rel. Carter v. Roberts, 99 Fed. 948 (2nd Cir.1900), cert. denied, 176 U.S. 684, 20 S.Ct. 1026, 44 L.Ed.......
  • Pikes Peak Power Co. v. City of Colorado Springs
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 5, 1900
    ... ... 26 Stat. 826, c ... 517; Carter v. Roberts, 20 Sup.Ct. 713, 177 U.S ... 500, 44 L.Ed ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT