APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS
Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, Brown, White, Peckham, McKenna, Holmes, Day
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
Article 43 of section 1624 of the Revised Statutes, upon which the Court Claims based its legal conclusion that the action of the court-martial in question was void because the charge and specification were not served upon the claimant at the time of the original arrest, reads as follows: "The person accused shall be furnished with a true copy of the charges, with the specifications, at the time he is put under arrest."
It is conceded by the findings that at once when the charge and specification were formulated by Rear Admiral Watson and the court-martial was ordered to be convened, a copy of the charge and specification was served upon Smith. It is also established by the findings that no objection as to tardiness of service was made at the time of trial. Conceding, arguendo solely, and without so deciding, that under these circumstances the objection as to the lateness of the service was jurisdictional and could be collaterally inquired into, we think the contention is wholly devoid of merit. Nearly ten years before the trial in question was had, in the year 1890, the Secretary of the Navy submitted to the Attorney General the question of whether the arrest referred to in Article 43 related to the preliminary arrest which might be consequent upon the commission of an offense, or applied to the arrest made after charges had been formulated and as court-martial ordered. The Attorney General advised that the word arrest as employed in Article 43 did not relate to the preliminary arrest or detention of an accused person awaiting the action of higher authority to frame charges and specifications and order a court-martial, but to the arrest resulting from the preferring of the charges by the proper authority and the convening
of a court-martial. 19 Opinions of Attorney General, 472. The reasoning by which the Attorney General reached the conclusion just stated we think was absolutely conclusive. Doubtless the opinion became the rule of practice in the Navy, and the construction affixed by the Attorney General to the statute was sanctioned by this court in Johnson v. Sayre, 158 U.S. 109, and such construction has been reiterated in an opinion announced this day. Bishop v. United States, 197 U.S. 334.
Whilst these considerations dispose of the contentions raised and passed on below, a new ground for reversal was urged at bar, founded on Article 38 of section 1624 of the Revised Statutes. That Article reads as follows:
"Art. 38. General courts-martial may by convened by the President, Secretary of the Navy, or the Commander in Chief of a fleet or squadron; but no commander of a fleet or squadron in the waters of the United States shall convene such court without express authority from the President."
Although it is not denied that Rear Admiral Watson was a commander of a fleet within the meaning of that expression as employed in Article 38, it is insisted that as he convened the court-martial while in Manila Bay, about six weeks after the treaty with Spain by which the Philippine Islands were acquired by the United States, therefore the fleet or squadron under his command was "in the waters of the United States," within the meaning of those words as employed in the enactment in question, and there was no power in the Commander in Chief to convoke a court-martial without express authority from the President, which is not found to have been given. This objection, if well taken, is jurisdictional, but in our judgment it is without merit; and we reach this conclusion wholly irrespective of the status of the Philippine Islands.
The clause in question was originally enacted in 1862, before even the acquisition of Alaska, and was intended, we think, to apply to those waters within what was termed by Congress in the act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1107, 1108, the continental
limits of the United States. In other words, the provision in question did not take into view the dominion or sovereignty of the United States over territory beyond the seas and far removed from the seat of government, but contemplated waters within the United States in the stricter and popular sense of the term. Looking to the language used, in the light of the surrounding circumstances and the purpose which it was intended to accomplish, Platt v. Union Pacific R.R., 99 U.S. 48, 64, it is, we think, manifest that the prohibition against the convocation by the commander of a fleet or squadron of a general court-martial, without the previous authorization of the President, was intended to be operative only when the fleet or squadron was in a home port, as above defined. That is to say, that Congress contemplated the necessity of an order from the President when the circumstances supposed to require the convening of the court-martial could be with facility submitted to the President for his action in the premises. To give a broad meaning to the expression "waters of the United States," as employed in Article 38, by construing those words as referring not only to the home waters but to far distant waters, would, we think, defeat the plain purposes of Congress and seriously impair, if not destroy, an important power vested in the commander of a fleet or squadron when at distant stations, remote from the home country. Certainly, if the remoteness from the continental limits of the United States is immaterial and the restriction of Article 38 is applicable ...