provided for." Or, as Coppée' observes,-"This Article is intended to be supplementary to all the others, and to provide a general charge under which every possible kind of offence not provided for may be ranged." This very general description of the offences within the scope of the Article, as being simply those which are "not mentioned" in the other Articles, is characteristic of the military as distinguished from the civil code where all offences are separately defined. Its indefiniteness, however, presents little difficulty to the student of military law who has familiarized himself with the precedents contained in the General Orders." It is to be observed of the term "not mentioned in the foregoing articles," that it embraces not only offences wholly distinct from and outside of previous designations and enumerations, but also, (1) acts which, while of the same general nature as those included in certain specific Articles, are wanting in some single characteristic which distinguishes the latter,-as, for example, the disrespectful behaviour to a superior who is not a commander, the disobedience of the orders of a non-commissioned officer, the mutinous conduct, the drunkenness off duty, and the embezzlement or misappropriation of private property, heretofore referred to as not included within Arts. 20, 21, 22, 38 and 60 respectively; as also acts similar to those described in Arts. 3, 5, 8, 14, 15, 16, 27, 50 and 60, but which lack the gravamen expressed in the term, "knowingly," "wilfully," or the like; (2) acts which, though in terms or in effect prohibited in other Articles, are not expressly made punishable thereby-such as the acts or neglects indicated in Arts. 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 25, 29, 30, 67, 70, 84, 85, 87, 127, and, in part, in Arts. 54 and 55; and (3) acts made specifically punishable in other Articles but only when committed by 1. Page 88. To a similar effect, see Hough, 630; Harcourt, 58; O'Brien, 165. It is the fact that the Article provides for the punishment of offences which the other specific Articles have failed to embrace-thus rendering it impossible for the soldier to escape the consequences of any military offence which he may commit-that, has given it the name in the British army of the "Devil's Article." As apposite to the term "foregoing," it may be remarked that the present Article, (unlike Art. 99 of 1806,) is not in the proper place in the It should have been inserted after all the Articles setting forth specific offences, and therefore after Arts. 65, 68 and 69. code. 2. See the remarks of the Supreme Court in Dynes v. Hoover, 20 Howard, 82, in reference to the corresponding Article of the naval code. persons of a grade other than that of the accused,-as, for example, absence without leave by officers, and breach of arrest by soldiers, which are not included in Arts. 32 and 65, because those Articles relate to offences by enlisted men and officers respectively, only.' Illustrations of Neglects and Disorders charged under the Article. As indicating the species of offences, other than "crimes," which, in practice, have been brought to trial under Art. 62, it will be instructive to note some of the more pointed of the many and varied instances of "neglects" and "disorders," to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, published in the General Orders, or referred to by military authorities, as follows: In cases of officers. Failing without excuse to be present with his command, or to exercise command, on occasions of duty.3 Failing to suppress, or to attempt to suppress, disorders in the command. Failing to restore and maintain the public peace on the occasion of a riot which he was called upon to suppress.5 Abuse of authority in assaulting, or illegally inflicting punishment upon, soldiers." 1. This class of acts, as properly chargeable under the corresponding British Article, is noticed in Mann v. Owen, 9 B. & Cres. 600. 2. The acts specified do not include of course the manifold petty of fences of soldiers, such as absences without leave, ordinary breaches of duty, drunken and disorderly behaviour, &c., habitually tried and disposed of by the inferior courts-martial. 3. G. C. M. O. 39 of 1877. And see Do. 38, 58, Id.; DIGEST, 44-5; also case in Do. 50, 59, Navy Dept., 1882, (under the corresponding Article,) of an officer who left his command without authority, when an epidemic, (yellow fever,) was impending. Absence without leave, by officers of the army, is in general properly chargeable under this Article. See ante-"Thirty-Second Article." 4. G. O. 3. Dept. & Army of the Tenn., 1877; Do. 5, Dept. of the Mo., 1864; Hough, (P.) 187. 5. Case of Lt. Col. Brereton and Capt. Warrington, charged with neglect of duty at the "Bristol Riots" in 1831. (Col. Brereton committed suicide pending the trial; Capt. Warrington was sentenced to be cashiered.) Hough, (P.) 578-584; Clode, 2 M. F., 478. 6. G. O. 81 of 1822; Do. 8 of 1826; Do. 28 of 1829; Do. 2, 17, 68, of 1843; Do. 39 of 1845; G. C. M. O. 80, 114, of 1875; Do. 112, Dept. of the East, 1870; Do. 50, Dept. of the Mo., 1871; Do. 35, Dept. of Texas, 1873; Do. 39, Id., 1874; Do. 33, Id., 1876; G. O. 9, Div. of the Atlantic, 18t9: Allowing a soldier to go on duty when known to be materially under the influence of liquor.' Employment of soldiers for personal, or other illegal uses.2 Exceeding limits of arrest.3 Rendering himself unfit for duty by excessive use of spirituous liquors. Joining with other inferior officers of the regiment in a communication to the colonel, requesting him to resign.5 Tendering his resignation in disloyal language. Expressing disloyal sentiments.7 Publications, in newspapers, pamphlets, &c., of strictures upon the acts or conduct, official or personal, of other officers. Taking part in meetings convened for the purpose of expressing disapprobation of the orders or acts of superiors.9 Betting at cards by a disbursing officer. 10 Do. 5, Id., 1870; Do. 20, Div. of the Pacific, 1869; Do. 53, Dept. of Va. & No. Ca., 1864; Do. 22, Dept. of the Platte, 1867. And see G. O. 23 of 1824; Do. 34 of 1842; Do. 4 of 1843; Do. 2 of 1844; Do. 32, Div. of the Pacific, 1867; Hough, 634. See also G. O. 2 of 1861, for a case of a conviction of an officer for the arbitrary imprisonment and ill-treatment of a sutler. And note case in G. C. M. O. 7 of 1880, of harassing junior cadets. 1. G. C. M. O. 29, Dept. of Texas, 1881. 2. G. C. M. O. 65, of 1874. And see the case of employment, for private purposes, of freedmen under military protection, in G. C. M. O. 213 of 1866. 3. See G. C. M. O. 37, Dept. of Texas, 1874. 4. G. C. M. O. 58 of 1879; Do. 64 of 1880; Do. 49 of 1883. 5. DIGEST, 44. And see case in G. C. M. O. 116, Dept. of the East, 1884, of a conspiring by two officers to injure their commanding officers, found as an offence under this Article. 6. G. O. 35, Dept. of the Tenn., 1863. 7. G. O. 242, 377, of 1863; Do. 38, Middle Dept., 1863; Do. 35, Dept. of the Tenn., 1863; Do. 76, Dept. of Washington, 1865; Hough, 634. 8. G. O. 150 of 1863; G. C. M. O. 26 of 1878; Do. 35 of 1879; Do. 37 of 1885; G. O. 20, Dept. of W. Va., 1863; DIGEST, 44, 458. And see Lieut. Kennon's Trial, p. 8. In connection with these cases may be noticed those of making alleged false or injurious official statements, preferring false charges, and the like, charged as violations of Art. 61, but found as offences under Art. 62. See G. C. M. O. 71 of 1879; Do. 51 of 1882; Do. 19 of 1885; Do. 116, Dept. of the East, 1884. 9. Harcourt, 95. 10. G. C. M. O. 18 of 1871. And see DIGEST, 46, as to speculating by a disbursing officer. Fighting a duel.' Inciting another officer to challenge him to a duel." Altercation with another officer in the presence of inferiors.3 Disrespectful and insulting language to a superior officer, in the presence of officers and soldiers, while all were held confined as prisoners of war by the enemy.4 Interference with or disrespect toward a sentinel. Treating with disrespect and contempt an officer of the provost guard at Washington." Gambling, or otherwise demeaning himself, with enlisted men' Entering into illegal combinations with other officers or soldiers. 8 Causing troops to be transported on a steamer known to be unsafe.9 Neglecting the sick, or culpable malpractice, by a surgeon." Inexcusable neglect by a chaplain to perform funeral services." Ordering a garrison court to try a capital offence, and putting the members in arrest because the court decided it had no jurisdiction of the same.12 As a member of a court-martial-improperly disclosing the proceedings had in secret session;13 refusing to vote a punishment after conviction; appearing drunk before the court, or behaving disrespectfully to the court:15 As a witness-failing to comply I. DIGEST, 14. 2. DIGEST, 45. 3. G. O. 169, Dept. of Washington, 1865. 4. G. C. M. O. 425 of 1865. 5. DIGEST, 454. 6. G. O. 3, Army of the Potomac, 1861. 7. G. O. 46 of 1848. And see Do. 88, Army of the Potomac, 1852. (Sometimes charged under Art. 61-see that Article-ante.) 8. G. C. M. O. 602 of 1865. (Case of Bvt. Brig. Gen. Briscoe.) 9. DIGEST, 45. 10. G. O. 64 of 1827; Do. 3 of 1856; G. C. M. O. 18 of 1877; Hough, (P.) 275. 11. G. O. 96, Army of the Potomac, 1862. 12. G. O. 10 of 1857. (Capt. Howe's case.) 13. G. C. M. O. 113, Dept. of the Mo., 1868. 14. See Hough, (P.) 277-9; DIGEST, 447. 15. See G. O. 1 of 1858; G. C. M. O. 9, Fourth Mil. Dist., 1867. with a summons; testifying falsely under oath;2 using disre- 86.7 Neglect of official duties, in leaving the preparation of vouch- II Violation of special paragraphs of the Army Regulations,12 as 1. G. O. 190, Fifth Mil. Dist., 1869. 2. G. O. 77, Dept. of Va. & No. Ca., 1864. 3. G. O. 14 of 1855; Do. 126, Sixteenth Army Corps, 1863. And see 10. G. C. M. O. 30 of 1877; Do. 36, 62, of 1879; Do. 33 of 1880. 13. G. O. 43 of 1832. 14. G. C. M. O. 84 of 1882. And see similar cases in Do. 28 of 1880; 15. G. O. 251 of 1863; Do. 59, Dept. of the South, 1862. 16. G. O. 9, Fifth Mil. Dist., 1870. And see case in G. O. 3, Army of |