been omitted a statement of a fact. Reasoning my analogy it would seem to follow inevitably that under the Army Regulations before mentioned, the reviewing authority might reconvene the court for the purpose of pointing out a defect in the record which is a mere omission, going not to the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court, that the omission might be supplied. Certainly much more important errors and omissions are covered by the paragraph quoted and it ought. to be held that this would include the supplying of a clerical omission. The general rule is that the record of a Court Martial must show a proceeding regular and valid on its face. I do not find a case or an opinion directly to the point that when members are challenged the record must show that pending a consideration of the question, the challenged members were absent, but it has been held by eminent authority that the record must show that the Judge Advocate was sworn or the accused must be given a new trial. 3 Op. Atty. Gen., U. S., 749. This opinion indicates what might be held as to the present record, applying the above stated general rule.

I am clearly of the opinion that as the reviewing authority it is within your power to order that the court be reconvened for the purpose of correcting the record so that it may conform to the requirements of the paragraph heretofore quoted from page 137, Blue Book. This conclusion seems to render it necessary to consider some of the other points of appeal.

The appellant contends that no offense cognizable by a G. A. R. Court Martial was alleged in either of the four specifications. I cannot agree with him. His point seems to be that no matter how reprehensible or how unbecoming a soldier and a gentleman, his attacks upon one member of his own Post, and upon several comrades belonging to the same department may have been, he was within his legal rights as a citizen and for that reason was immune from prosecution as a comrade. He accused other members of our organization of various crimes and misdemeanors, such as theft and subordination of perjury with respect to matter pertaining to Grand Army affairs. He characterized the Board of Trustees of said Soldiers' Home and the Commandant thereof, as boodlers and rascals in their official capacity, and at the trial contended that he had the right to offer testimony tending to establish the truth of one of his accusations. Comrade Smith's duty and obligation as a member of our order required of him that he refrain from circulating injurious reports concerning his comrades, whether true or false, and from stigmatizing them as rascals or boodlers or criminals, in relation to the Grand Army. He brought reproach and disgrace upon himself as a member of the organization, upon other members of the order as such, and upon the G. A. R. itself, when he used this intemperate and evidently passionate language. His conduct was on several occasions unbecoming a soldier or a gentleman, and such conduct was nearly all in respect to matters pertaining to the Grand Army. He seems to be oblivious of the fact that when a

veteran of the civil war assumes the obligation of a comrade his act is voluntary, and that he must and has surrendered some of his privleges as a citizen. In the latter capacity he may assail his fellows, orally or in writing, and is responsible through the courts and in money only. When he joins the G. A. R. it is for his good, and for the privilege of associating himself with others who have done the same thing. His obligation to conduct himself in a becoming manner towards others belonging to the same order is self-assumed, not thrust upon him, and he must observe it, or withdraw. He cannot villify and abuse his comrades and disgrace the order, and then attempt a justification by insisting that he was within his legal rights as a citizen. It is true as he argues that an individual is not the G. A. R., but it is also true that when the individual becomes a member of the order, he yields up some of his privileges as an individual. This is being done every day when men join fraternal or religious societies, realizing that for the privilege they must yield to the rules and to superior authority for their own good and that of their associates. If they do not choose to yield, they need not become members. Having agreed, one of two things is to be done, obedience to self assumed obligations, or withdrawal voluntary or involuntary.

One point remains to be briefly referred to. The accused contends that the court erred when refusing to permit him to introduce testimony tending to show that the statements covered by specification 1 were true. There was no error in this ruling as has been previously indicated when commenting on the sufficiency of the specifications. The issue was not as to the truthfulness or untruthfulness of his utterances, but was whether or not his conduct in giving voice thereto was becoming or unbecoming. The testimony offered was irrelevant and immaterial, and no court of justice would have admitted it on a plea of "not guilty."

I conclude by recommending that as Commander-in-Chief you order that the Court Martial in question reconvene for the sole purpose of amending its record so that it may show, if it be the fact, that each of the challenged members of the court retired when the challenge preferred against him was under consideration, thereafter took no part in the discussion and did not vote upon the question.

I have prepared head notes for this opinion and forward herewith. I also return the record, notice of appeal, the affidavits referred to, and other papers which seem to have been sent to you with the record. Dated July 16, 1908.

Respectfully submitted in F., C. and L.,

LOREN W. COLLINS,
Judge Advocate General.

Report of Warren Lee Goss,
National Patriotic Instructor.

August, 1908.

JERE T. DEW,

Adjutant General, Grand Army of the Republic.

Dear Sir and Comrade:-It becomes my duty, as National Patr otic Instructor, to report for the current year now closing as follows: Upon assuming the work for the year, it was my duty to point out to the Department Patriotic Instructors the changes made by the Forty-first National Encampment at Saratoga in the rules for the government of National Patriotic Instruction. With this in view, I sent to all Department Patriotic Instructors the following letter: OFFICE OF NATIONAL PATRIOTIC INSTRUCTOR, GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC. Rutherford, N. J., November

To...

Department Patriotic Instructor.

Dear Sir and Comrade:

1907.

In beginning the patriotic educational work of the year I desire to call attention to the action of the Forty-first National Encampment, so far as it affects the government of patriotic educational work.

The following resolution was adopted: "Resolved, That it is the sense of this Encampment that Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in some form, be placed in every school and public building throughout this land."

I would recommend, and earnestly urge, that the bronze tablet bearing that Address, which has been approved by the Grand Army, be used for that purpose wherever possible. It will be a fitting memorial of the hundredth anniversary of the birth of our great War President, as well as an object lesson in patriotism for the present and coming generations.

Your National Patriotic Instructor in his report to the Forty-first National Encampment made the following recommendation, which was adopted by the Encampment: "* that Department Patriotic Instructors, with the approval of their Department Commanders, be allowed to appoint Assistant Patriotic Instructors to aid in the work."