316 FBSEBAIi BEPOBTBB. �the term of enlistment, would be to shield the guilty from punishment, to encourage crime, and to greatly demoralize the military service. The jurisdiction, therefore, in such cases is to be maintained upon the highest considerations of public polioy. �But such considerations are not alone sufficient to support the jurisdiction of a court which bas power to deal with life, liberty, and property. The jurisdiction of a criminal court must rest upon sound principles of law, and not merely upon considerations of public interest and convenience. It fre- quently happens that the guilty go acquit because there is no lawful mode of trial and punishment provided. The juris- diction in the cases named, and in many others of like char- acter, must therefore be upheld upon the ground first men- tioned, to-wit: that the court-martial acquired it by the proper commencement of proceedings, and could not be divested of it by any subsequent change in the status of the accused; and this reason ap plies as well to a case where the crime is one known to the common or statute law, as to one in which the offence is purely military. In both the juris- , diction is maintained, after the end of the term of enlistment, upon the same ground. This conclusion is supported by judicial interpretation, in the only cases, so far as I know, in which the question bas arisen. U. S. v. Travers, 2 Wheeler, 509; In re Dew, 25 L. E. 540; In re Bird, 2 Sawy. 33; In re Walker, 3 Am. Jurist, 281. �What I have said is conolusive of the case, and it is there- fore not necessary to consider the question whether the term of enlistment of a soldier in the army is for five years, or five years and until discharged. * In either case the prisoner must be remanded to the custody of the warden to abide the sen- tence of the court-martial. So ordered. ��� �
