TECHNICAL MANUAL] No. 27-250 WAR DEPARTMENT Order of President McKinley of July 18, 1898– Page 9 SECTION VIII. Termination of Military Government. Burke v. Miltenberger – Santiago v. Nogueras_ Clegg v. State__ State v. Jarvis Page 82 82 86 89 90 90 Jarvis, State v., 63 N. C. 556.. Johnson, Dow v., 100 U. S. 158. Kain, State ex rel. v. Hall, 65 Tenn. 3. Keely v. Sanders, 99 U. S. 441. Ketchum v. Buckley, 99 U. S. 188. Lamar, Executor v. Browne, 92 U. S. 187. 68 41 19 7 Heath, Mayor, State of Louisiana ex rel. O'Hara v., 20 La. Ann. 518.. 46 90 73 41 14 52 31 Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 404 Leitensdorfer et al. v. Webb, 20 How. 176. Louisiana, State of, ex rel. O'Hara v. Heath, Mayor, 20 La. Ann. 518 MacLeod v. United States, 229 U. S. 416.. Miltenberger, Burke, v. 19 Wall. 519 Mitchell, v. Harmony, 13 How. 115. New Orleans, v. Steamship Co., 20 Wall. 387. New York Steamship Co., New Orleans v., 20 Wall. 387_ Nogueras, Santiago, v., 214 U. S. 260. O'Hara, State of Louisiana ex rel. v. Heath, Mayor, 20 La. Ann. 518 Ortiz, Ex Parte, 100 Fed. 955... 82 46 16 86 19 28 43 43 89 46 68 SECTION I OCCASION FOR MILITARY GOVERNMENT (See FM 27-5, pars. 3-5, 10, and 32-34; and 27-10, pars. 281-286.) United States v. Reiter, Federal Case No. 16,146_. Cross v. Harrison, 16 Howard 164_ Order of President McKinley of July 18, 1898-. UNITED STATES V. REITER Provisional Court, State of Louisiana, July 1865 Federal Case No. 16,146 The accused were tried before Judge Peabody and a jury, and were severally convicted; [Augustus] Reiter of murder, and [John] Louis of arson. After the convictions a motion was made in each case in arrest of judgment. case. PEABODY, PROVISIONAL JUDGE. These two cases may without inconvenience or danger of confusion be considered together, although they have in fact no connection with each other. The same objection to the proceeding of the court to pronounce sentence upon the accused and in arrest of judgment, is made by both the defendants, and although the objection is urged on different grounds in the two cases, still the objection is proper to be considered on all the grounds in each It is urged that this court is not authorized to try these defendants, and that its proceedings have not the sanction of law in the premises. If for any reason this be the case, no further steps should be taken. If for any reason the authority is wanting in one case it is equally so in the other, and the court should refrain from going further in either case. The accused have been indicted separately and tried separately on charges wholly different and having no connection the one with the other, and the consideration of their cases together rather than separately, now, is a matter of convenience solely. One of the accused, Reiter, has been indicted for murder, in causing the death of his wife by violence. The other has been indicted for arson, in burning a building used as a mansion or dwellinghouse. Each has been tried before a jury of this parish and been duly convicted of the offence charged in the indictment, and each is |