REPORT OF JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL. Comrade DAVID J. PALMER, INDIANA, PA. Commander in Chief Grand Army of the Republic. COMRADE: I submit herewith my report as judge advocate general. I may premise that when in the spring of 1865, at the close of the War of the Rebellion, I took off my uniform, I thought that after practically four years varied, much of it hard service, I was forever lone soldiering. That was a rash and hasty thought. In our Republic public opinion is a great factor in government, and every tizen should help to promote patriotic thought. With this feeling n 1867 I became a member of the Grand Army of the Republic. It s a most valuable educator of patriotic thought for the good of the country. I have never been ambitious and, indeed, too busy for high place in our great organization. When, then, comrade commander in chief, without desire or request from me, the appointment of judge advocate general came I could not decline. As a duty I accepted. If in any respect I have failed, it has been because of too many other active engagements. Before referring in detail to any matters submitted, I presume to suggest that while, of course, his adjutant general should live near and be at the headquarters, so also should the judge advocate general be personally within easy reach of the commander in chief. The duty of the judge advocate general is to aid in deciding cases under our rules and regulations. Much of the duty of the commander in chief is administrative, such as adjusting troubles and disputes in the departments and posts. A personal interview with the judge advocate general would often be better than waiting for a formal written opinion. The commander in chief can regulate this by appointing a competent person who lives so near him that he can easily be called in personal consultation, rather than select one as a compliTent to some distant department. Many letters come to this office asking advice about particular matters as to authority under our rules and regulations. To illustrate, I recall soon after assuming the duties, the commander of a post in a distant State wrote asking if the post could bury a comrade not a member of the Grand Army. If the comrade commander would have recalled that a mere expression of opinion by the commander in chief or any of his staff on a case not formally before them, he would have discovered that any answer would have been without authority as a precedent. It may, then, be observed the real value of a judge advocate general's report is a statement of his opinion in the cases submitted to him during his term. There were not many cases referred by the commander in chief to me. Probably the most important was relative to Comrade W. C. Chandler, at the time commander of the Department of Tennessee. We may call it THE TENNESSEE CASE. In my opinion sent March, 1915, the precise question is stated. We may, however, epitomize the matter here by stating that Comrade Adjt. Gen. Newman, by direction of the commander in chief, wrote me that "Comrade Chandler at the department encampment at Tennessee in 1914 had been elected senior vice department commander; that Department Commander Thompson dying, Chandler had succeeded as commander * * * That several past department commanders had questioned Chandler's right to membership in the Grand Army and asked his removal." It appears Chandler had never been actually mustered into the service, consequently never discharged therefrom. But it further appeared August 11, 1863, he was regularly enlisted by a commissioned recruiting officer as a member of Company B, Third Tennessee Cavalry. That on marching to the rendezvous in Kentucky with others, to be mustered, he was - captured by the enemy, taken to Richmond, and kept in Castle Thunder till its fall, April 3, 1865-20 months. It appeared further that about 1900 Congress passed a bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior "to place on the pension roll William Chandler, late of Company B, Third Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry," which was done. After this, in about 1901-about 14 years agoComrade Chandler was mustered into Post No. 28, Grand Army of the Republic of Tennessee. That the act of Congress was presented to the examining committee of the post and apparently accepted as tantamount to a muster. After this lapse of time and his recognition since 1902 in the Grand Army, holding office therein, objection is made direct to the commander in chief that Comrade Chandler is not rightfully a member of the Grand Army of the Republic and demanding his removal. After most careful examination of the matter and our rules and regulations, the history of which I epitomized in a necessarily lengthy opinion, I reported, as the case stood before me, no appeal ever having been taken about Comrade Chandler's eligibility or complaint in his department, the commander in chief was without original jurisdiction in the case. The opinion is as follows: IN THE MATTER OF COMPLAINT ABOUT DEPARTMENT COMMANDER CHANDLER, OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TENNESSEE. SYLLABUS. 1. The present acting commander of the Department of Tennessee was, in 1902, regularly elected and mustered into R. N. Hood Post No. 28, G. A. R., Department of Tennessee, at Knoxville, and has ever since been a recognized member of the Grand Army, serving one year as junior vice commander of his post. At the department encampment of 1914 of that State he was elected and installed as department senior vice commander. Department Commander Thompson died December, 1914, and the senior vice commander became the commander and is now acting as such. Recently some past department commanders of that department have questioned the right of the present acting department commander to act as such and have demanded of the commander in chief his removal as such and from the Grand Army, alleging he was originally ineligible to In the form, time, and manner of this complaint and demand for removal, under the rules and regulations the commander in chief is without jurisdiction to take the action requested toward the present acting department commander of Tennessee. 2. Under the rules and regulations the post is, primarily, the properly constituted body to test the eligibility of an applicant for membership in the Grand Army. If it is complained that the post has elected and mustered one who is ineligible, the proper remedy is an appeal to the department under the forms and limitations provided for appeals. If the department action on the appeal is complained of, an appeal can be taken to the commander in chief. DAVID J. PALMER, Esq., HEADQUARTERS, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, Commander in Chief, Grand Army Republic. COMRADE AND SIB: In obeying your request for an opinion as judge advocate general about a complaint made to you as to the eligibility to membership in the Grand Army of the Republic of W. C. Chandler, now acting department commander of Tennessee, Vice Commander H. P. Thompson, who died December 16, 1914, and demanding his removal, it is relevant and proper to briefly epitomize material history in this connection of the organization and government of our great order. After Appomatox had reestablished the power and authority of the United States in all the States it was as natural as the changes of the seasons that associations of the men who carried our flag to victory should be formed in every part of our country. After other efforts in this behalf a plan for organization was formulated by Maj. Stephenson, who was borne on the rolls as the founder, April 1, 1866, of our order. Since then the Grand Army of the Republic has existed as a great organization, governed by concrete rules and regulations, which have been formally enacted by its encampments and proper authorities and interpreted from time to time. While the Grand Army is a voluntary organization, yet to perpetuate its existence, make agreeable its fellowship and effective its influence specific rules and regulations of uniform application among all its constituted bodies are as indispensable as rules and regulations for an army or laws for the government of the State. Realizing this necessity early in the organization, as the basis for its government, what was called a constitution was adopted, but for reasons this title was soon changed to "Rules and regulations." This change of name was doubtless made because its members were soldiers of an army which was governed by rules and regulations: probably, I may say, similia similibus. These rules and regulations were formally prepared, reported, discussed, and adopted at the first, what was called a national convention, at Indianapolis, November, 1866. This system of government forms the controlling basis of the organization to-day. Under it, following, apparently, the plan of the United States, each State supreme within certain limits, but ail subject to a National Constitution, there are various constituted bodies of our organization all over the country. First, local organizations called posts"; then, State organizations called "departments"; then, the national organization called "the national encampment." Each of these exercises complete authority within its sphere, but all subordinate to the immediately superior body, to which superior bodies appellate proceedings are provided for under the rules and regulations, thus making a harmonious and homogeneous unity. The whole system indeed reechoes the national motto, “E pluribus unum." It is well known the announcement of a principle by the law courts of the country, to be a precedent for other cases, must have been made in a specific case before the Court of which the court has jurisdiction. Mr. Lincoln, while discussing the Dred Scott case, well said, Judicial decisions have two uses. First, to absolutely determine the case derided: secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise." For the latter use they are called "precedents" and "authorities." Indeed, about that Dred Scott case it was always said by those who criticised it that C. J. Taney, who delivered the opinion, talked about things not really before him, which were, in the languaze of the lawyer, obiter dicta; that is, unnecessary statements. The court is only required to give an opinion, under the rules and regulations, on the question of which it had jurisdiction and before it. Bluebook, 1913, p. 70.) THE PRECISE QUESTION HERE. After these general, but I think pertinent, utterances, what is the precise co to Comrade W. C. Chandler, at the time commander of the Depar ment of Tennessee. We may call it THE TENNESSEE CASE. In my opinion sent March, 1915, the precise question is stated. W may, however, epitomize the matter here by stating that Comrac Adjt. Gen. Newman, by direction of the commander in chief, wrot me that "Comrade Chandler at the department encampment & Tennessee in 1914 had been elected senior vice department com mander; that Department Commander Thompson dying, Chandle had succeeded as commander * * *. That several past depar ment commanders had questioned Chandler's right to membershi in the Grand Army and asked his removal." It appears Chandle had never been actually mustered into the service, consequently neve discharged therefrom. But it further appeared August 11, 1863, h was regularly enlisted by a commissioned recruiting officer as a mem ber of Company B, Third Tennessee Cavalry. That on marching t the rendezvous in Kentucky with others, to be mustered, he wa captured by the enemy, taken to Richmond, and kept in Castl Thunder till its fall, April 3, 1865-20 months. It appeared furthe that about 1900 Congress passed a bill authorizing the Secretary o the Interior "to place on the pension roll William Chandler, lat of Company B, Third Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry, which was done. After this, in about 1901-about 14 years agoComrade Chandler was mustered into Post No. 28, Grand Army of the Republic of Tennessee. That the act of Congress was presented to the examining committee of the post and apparently accepted as tantamount to a muster. After this lapse of time and his recognition since 1902 in the Grand Army, holding office therein, objection is made direct to the commander in chief that Comrade Chandler is not rightfully a member of the Grand Army of the Republic and demanding his removal. After most careful examination of the matter and our rules and regulations, the history of which I epitomized in a necessarily lengthy opinion, I reported, as the case stood before me, no appeal ever having been taken about Comrade Chandler's eligibility or complaint in his department, the commander in chief was without original jurisdiction in the case. The opinion is as follows: IN THE MATTER OF COMPLAINT ABOUT DEPARTMENT COMMANDER CHANDLER, OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TENNESSEE. SYLLABUS. 1. The present acting commander of the Department of Tennessee was, in 1902, regularly elected and mustered into R. N. Hood Post No. 28, G. A. R., Department of Tennessee, at Knoxville, and has ever since been a recognized member of the Grand Army, serving one year as junior vice commander of his post. At the department encampment of 1914 of that State he was elected and installed as department senior vice commander. Department Commander Thompson died December, 1914, and the senior vice commander became the commander and is now acting as such. Recently some past department commanders of that department have questioned the right of the present acting department commander to act as such and have demanded of the commander in chief his removal as such and from the Grand Army, alleging he was originally ineligible to |