During the War also there was much popular feeling evinced against the punishment known as "field punishment" (a definition of which will be found in the Manual of Military Law). Field punishment No. I no longer exists as it was known at the out break of the War, as s. 44 (5) now lays down that field punish ment must not take the form of "flogging or attachment to a fixed object." (B. E. W. C.) United States.—Military law is the body of rules, regula tions and doctrines that have been prescribed for the government of the Army and the Navy. In contradistinction to martial law, military law is a permanent code, applicable alike in time of peace and war. It finds its sources in the Constitution of the United States (article I., section 8; article II., section 2, and the Fifth Amendment) ; in the Articles of War, in Army Regulations, in statutes, general and special orders, circulars and bulletins issued by the military authorities under the direction of the Presi dent; in the Manual for Courts-Martial of the United States Army, and in the customs and usages of the service. (These cus toms and usages are binding only when not in contravention to law. Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheaton 19.) To these sources of military law should he added the decisions of the courts, the President, the secretary of war, and the opinions of the judge advocate general and the attorney-general. (Davis, Treatise en Military Law, r, 6; 5 Corpus Juris 296.) Army Regulations have the force of law so long as they do not contravene existing law, are not legislative in their nature, and are not inconsistent with treaty obligations. (United States v. Symonds, 120 U.S. 49 United States v. Webster, 2 Ware 54.) They must be applicable to the military, be uniform, and not arbitrary or oppressive.
(United States v. Mann, 2 Block 9, r.) General and special orders issued by the highest authority of the Army are a part of military law. All persons subject to military law are amenable to the government of military law—all officers, cadets, members of the Army nurse corps, warrant officers, and enlisted men.
The first American code was enacted by the Second Continental Congress June 3o, 1775, and included sixty-nine articles of war, derived in great part from the British, and was amended on Nov. 7, 1775, by the addition of sixteen provisions. The code of 1806, composed of one hundred and one articles, was the first complete revision of the American code, and remained in force, with few amendments, until 1874. Changes culled from long experience were included in the articles of war of 192o. These new articles provided for a system of appellate review by a board of review and the President for certain general court-martial cases. (Arti cle of War 50-1.) They also provided for the appointment upon all general courts of a law member especially equipped to deter mine questions of law. The articles of war of 192o, introducing many changes in the procedure before courts-martial, with con structive criticism and suggestions, are incorporated in the Man uals for Courts-Martial, United States Army, of 1921 and 1928.
Courts-martial are the tribunals which administer the law in the army. These courts—(a) general courts, (b) special courts, and (c) summary courts (A. W. 3)—appointed by designated military authority, are established under the constitutional power of Congress and are lawful tribunals with penal or disciplinary jurisdiction. They are judicial in their nature. (Dyne v. Hoover, 61 U.S. 838.) A general court-martial is a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. Its judgments are entitled to the same respect as res judicata as those of the highest tribunals in the land. (Graf ton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333 ; ex parte Reed, ioo U.S. 13; Rose v. Roberts, 99 Fed. 948; Carter v. McClaughry, 183 U.S. 368.) The sentence of a general court confirmed by the Presi dent of the United States is altogether beyond the jurisdiction or inquiry of any civil tribunal whatever. (Smith v. Whiting, 116 U.S. 168; ex parte Mason, 105 U.S. 695.) To release a mili tary prisoner from confinement, habeas corpus will not lie unless the sentence under which the soldier is confined is an absolute nullity for want of jurisdiction. (Ex parte Watkins, 3 Peters 193.