"The Chief of Naval Personnel may, in his discretion, allow credit for completion of prescribed courses, whether legal or naval, to officers who submit to and pass with a satisfactory grade an examination in those subjects, under the terms of current policy and directives.

(d) Bureau of Naval Personnel correspondence courses and Naval War College correspondence courses are available to officers for individual training (art. H-5801). Successful completion of these courses, and successful completion of courses in legal subjects at an accredited college, will constitute evidence of the interest of officers in acquisition of greater naval and legal proficiency, and will assist in any tentative assignment of mobilization billets.

"Group Training

"Each individual unit will be responsible for the establishment and maintenance of an adequate group training program, which shall be designated in each locality to augment the individual training of the members (prescribed in par. 1 above), in accordance with the needs of the unit. Commandants will assist in the establishment of the individual programs and will exercise supervisory

control as necessary. Members should be en couraged to prepare papers on legal subjects hav ing naval significance, for presentation to and discussion at regular meetings of their units. Papers prepared in accordance herewith may be forwarded via the Commandant and the JAG to the Chief of Naval Personnel for inclusion in individual records and for possible publication in Navy Department periodicals.

"III. PROMOTION

"Officers of the Law Component will be promoted in accordance with the provisions of Part H BNP Manual.

"3. The foregoing will be amended from time to time as the needs of the Navy and Department policy require, and all amendments will be duly promulgated to the service."

In the establishing letter and the foregoing implementation, the ship has been commissioned and fitted out. Trial runs and shakedown may develop a few "quirks," but we are confident that no major mechanical or structural defects will appear. Interest and planning within the individual Units should take care of such minor repairs, the right way-by ship's force. The JAG extends his best wishes for a happy and successful cruise.

Published monthly by the Judge Advocate General of the Navy in the interest of true justice. The mission of the JAG JOURNAL is to promote legal forehandedness among naval personnel charged with the administration of naval law. The goal to be attained through this unofficial medium of instruction and review for those untrained or trained in law is the clear understanding of the basic laws governing Navy life and of the rights and obligations of naval personnel.

The editorial policy has been established as one of informality. For this reason its pages are not citable as legal authority in any judicial proceedings. Court Martial Orders and Opinions of the Judge Advocate General will continue to be the authoritative sources of citable decisions and legal precedent.

Views on controversial topics expressed herein by individual authors must be construed as being their own personal views, not necessarily bearing the endorsement or approval of the Navy Department or of the Judge Advocate General.

RADM. O. S. COLCLOUGH, USN Judge Advocate General of the Navy

RADM. G. L. RUSSELL, USN Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Navy

COMDR. T. F. RYAN, USNR Editor

LT. W. A. SAVAGE, USN Associate Editor

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,

U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. Price 10 cents, $1.00 per year, $1.35 Foreign

RESERVE NEWS

MORE

[ORE than 150 lawyers living within the Potomac River Naval Command gave up their plans for attending the monthly meeting of the District Bar Association on 13 April and attended instead, the first meeting of the Volunteer Reserve Law Component in Washington. The meeting was held at the Naval Gun Factory in the Naval Reserve Training Center and the plan outlined in the May issue of the JAG JOURNAL was greeted with enthusiasm.

Capt. David W. Hardin, USN, Legal Officer, Potomac River Naval Command, represented the Commandant and introduced Lt. Comdr. Harold D. Golds, USNR, as liaison officer between the law units and the District Legal Office. Capt. Lionel L. Rowe, USN, Planning and Organization Counsel for the Judge Advocate General and the guiding hand behind the Volunteer Reserve program, discussed the Navy's needs and plans in much detail. The Editor of the JAG JOURNAL was on hand to explain the relationship of the JAG JOURNAL to the Volunteer Reserve, and Comdr. J. R. Verbrycke, USN, attached to Legislative Counsel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, discussed legislation affecting the Naval Reserve pending before Congress.

Following the formal discussions of the program, the meeting was thrown open to questions by the officers attending and plans were laid for an early meeting at which the organization of the first Units would be completed.

Who is the first one to hear about trouble? Who is first asked for help and advice when a man runs afoul of the law? The chaplain, of course, whose heart may bleed but whose advice on too many occasions is limited by his knowledge to religious advice and consolation.

In order that Reserve chaplains may be prepared to offer legal advice which is accurate to some extent, and to enable them to be of the greatest assistance to Navy men in trouble, approximately 40 Reserve chaplains on inactive duty will join with the lawyers of the Naval Reserve in attending the law seminar at the Naval Gun Factory during 2 weeks beginning 7 June.

A quota has been established by the Chief of the Chaplain Corps for each of the naval districts east of the Mississippi River.

After two and one-half years as Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Colclough rejoins the "Silent Service" when detached this month. He will assume command of the Submarine Force, U. S. Pacific Fleet. Rear Admiral G. L. Russell, at present the Assistant Judge Advocate General, will relieve him, and Capt. E. E. Woods will become Assistant Judge Advocate General.

Admiral Colclough's tour of duty as Judge Advocate General has been most active. Almost his first problem was the preparation of a postwar plan to cover the law organization of the Navy and its contemplated contribution in the rendering of legal services. During the postwar planning period there was a very large personnel turn-over due to demobilization. After demobilization had been accomplished there emerged the present legal organization of the Navy composed of law specialists. All this required the most careful exercise of judgment, in both the planning and executory stages. Coincident with demobilization there was a large volume of legislation incident to the transition from wartime to peacetime conditions, requiring extensive interpretation. The National Security Act of 1947 in itself was, of course, a major item of legislation, far reaching in its effects. During the same period the Office of the Judge Advocate General resumed its prewar status as an independent office of the Navy Department, after having been a part of the Executive Office of the Secretary during the war years. The decision to publish the JAG JOURNAL, to be dedicated to legal

"forehandedness", was made by Admiral Colclough and is typical of the progressive spirit for which he is so well known. While space does not permit the printing of all items that belong on the plus side of the ledger under Admiral Colclough's regime, it is safe to say that the Office of the Judge Advocate General, and the law specialists organization generally, have profited immeasurably under his leadership, and that he enjoys the confidence of juniors and seniors alike.

The new Judge Advocate General, a resident of Vermont, also a submariner, holds a degree in law from George Washington University. He has been Assistant Judge Advocate General since November 1945, and will assume his new duties with first hand knowledge of Navy Department policy. His war service included duty as Commander Submarine Squadron Ten and duty on the staffs of the Commander in Chief, U. S. Atlantic and United States Fleets. As a matter of interest, it will be the fifth time in their naval careers that Admiral Russell has relieved Admiral Colclough.

Captain Woods, also from Vermont and a submariner, steps up to his new position from the Administrative Law Division of which he has been Chief. He was awarded a degree in law by George Washington University in 1937, and is a member of the District of Columbia Bar. His naval career includes duty in all types of combat ships and commands of submarines, destroyers and an Amphibious Force flagship.

WITHIN the sphere of their jurisdiction, the judgments and sentences of courts martial are

as final and conclusive as those of civil tribunals of last resort. They may be reviewed on habeas corpus, but only as to the jurisdiction of the court martial and the validity of its sentence, Mullan v. U. S., 212 U. S. 516.

By the Constitution of the United States, as well as by the constitutions of nearly all the States, it is provided that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

This writ (habeas corpus), says Mr. Justice Story, "is justly esteemed the great bulwark of personal liberty, since it is the appropriate remedy to ascertain whether any person is rightfully in confinement or not, and the cause of his confinement, and if no sufficient ground of detention appears, the party is entitled to his immediate discharge."

In England, the benefit of it was often eluded prior to the reign of Charles II, and especially during the reign of Charles I. These pitiful evasions gave rise to the famous Habeas Corpus Act of 31 Car. I, c. 10, which has been frequently considered as another Magna Charta in that kingdom, and has reduced the general method of proceedings on these writs to the true standard of law and liberty.

That statute has been incorporated, in substance, into the jurisprudence of every State in the Union, and the right to it has been secured in most, if not all, of the State constitutions by a provision similar to that existing in the Constitution of the United States. The privilege of the writ is not usually suspended except when martial law has been declared in a particular place or district. The effect of its suspension is to make it possible for military commanders or other officers to cause the arrest and detention of obnoxious or suspected persons without any regular process of law, and to deprive those persons of the right to an immediate hearing and to be discharged if the cause

of their arrest is found to be unwarranted by law.

It seems to be now settled, though not without disputes which are of considerable historical interest, that the power to suspend the writ, under the Federal Constitution, in the case of rebellion or invasion is confided to Congress alone; that it is the right and duty of that body to judge when the exigency has arisen to justify this step; and that it does not belong to the executive branch of the Government either to judge or to take the responsibility of suspending the writ of habeas corpus, unless under an authorization from Congress. (Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 115.)

In Duncan v. Kahanamoku and White v. Steer, 90 L Ed. Adv. Ops. 469; 66 Sup. Ct. Rep. 606, argued December 7, 1945, decided February 25, 1946, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in his opinion stated: "martial law is the exercise of the power which resides in the executive branch of the government to preserve order and to insure the public safety in time of emergency when other branches of the government are unable to function, or their functioning would itself threaten the public safety." Chief Justice further stated that "while the Executive has broad discretion as determining what is necessary to meet emergency, his action is subject to judicial review." In this same case Mr. Justice Murphy in a separate opinion cited Ex parte Milligan as authority for the rule that "the military lacks any constitutional power in war or in peace to substitute its tribunals for civil courts that are open and operating in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction."

The

The most widely known instance of the refusal of military authorities to respond to a writ of habeas corpus was President Lincoln's action in failing to recognize the writ issued by Chief Justice Taney, Ex parte Merryman, Fed. Cas. No. 9487 (17 Fed. Cas. 144).

The latest case of record is the sensational clash between Lt. Gen. Robert C. Richardson, Jr., and District Judge Delbert Metzger, in the Territory of Hawaii. In this case Judge Metzger fined Gen