
    JOHN SMITH v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [30 C. Cls. R., 304; 38 id., 257; 197 U. S. R., 386.]
    
      On the defendants'1 Appeal.
    
    A fireman on the TJ. S. S. Yorktown, who has served nearly, five years and received good-conduct medals, is ordered to take a watch from noon to 4 p. m. Having at 8 a. m. come off a watch and having from 8 a. m. until noon worked in the bilgers under hot boilers, and having his regular watch to perform from 8 p. m. to midnight, he considers this order an injustice and refuses to obey. On the trial he states that so considering ■ it he became excited and said more than he intended, and realized afterwards that he should have obeyed the order first and tlien appealed to the commanding officer. lie is arrested on tlie same day (2Gth May, 1899) and put in irons tor safe-keeping and held on shipboard as a prisoner until July 5, when he is brought to trial on charges not served on him until the 1st of July. He is convicted and sentenced to one year's imprisonment, to perform extra police duties during such confinement, and to lose pay- amounting to $87(1.
    The Court of Claims decides:
    1. The Act 17th July, 1862 (Itev. Stat, p. 283, section 1G24, article 43), provides : “ The person accused shall be furnished with a true copy of the, charges, %oith the specifications; at the time he is put under arrest; and no other charges than those so furnished shall be urged against him at the trial.” The history of this act shows that its provisions were intended to he jurisdictional.
    2. Sailors, being beyond the reach of the writ of habeas corpus and generally without legal advice, have always been subjects of protective legislation and jurisprudence.
    3. In civil life a man can not be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law. In the Army and Navy the proceedings are different and the safeguards less assured, but the principle is the same.
    4. In the Navy a man may he arrested and confined without an assigned reason being .given; but this confinement is limited by statute to “ not exceeding ten days.” (Rev. Stat., p. 281, article 24.)
    o. A longer confinement than ten days can he imposed on a man in the Navy only by sentence of a court-martial. •
    G. The provision that “ the person accused shall be furnished toith a true copy of the charges, with the specifications, at the time he is put under arrest, and no other charges than those, so furnished shall be urged against him at the trial,” can have but one meaning, and that meaning can not be expressed in plainer or simpler or more positive language than that of the statute.
    7. The initial sentence of the articles (Rev. Stat., p. 275) declares that “ the Wavy of the United States shall be governed by the following articles," and there is nothing in the forty-third article which indicates that it is directory and not mandatory.
    8. A court-martial is not invested with power to grant time to persons accused. All that it can do is to report the facts to the officer who convened the court. It will then be a matter of discretion with him to grant or refuse further time to a prisoner who was not furnished with a copy of the charges at the time of his arrest! This is not equivalent to the safeguard given by the forty-third article, which is one of the rights contemplated by the Supreme Court when it said they “ ean neither he exposed to dunyer nor subjected to the itncon-trolled will of any man.” (Rwnlcle v. United, States, 122 U. S. It., 543.)
    9. Where the accused was not furnished with a true copy of the. charges, with the specifications, at the time of his arrest, or perhaps within ten days thereafter, the sentence of a naval court-martial forfeiting his pay was contrary to law and void.
   The decision of the court below is reversed on the ground that, “ conceding, arguendo solely, and without so deciding, that under these circumstances the objection as to the lateness of the service was jurisdictional and could not be collaterally inquired into, we think the contention is wholly devoid of merit.”

Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 3,1905.  