?6 OCTOBE? TERM, 1907, Arg?,?,? for Plantiff in Error. 209 U. ? Crarnmond K?y ?d Mr. H? T? Ki?s? w? on the brief, for plYtiff in e?r: Nei?er the o?er of the ?r? of War, nor the "P?tt ?en?t" w? s ?tifi?tion by the U? S? of the ?r?o? ?t of ?n?l B?ke. Neither d? the ?m? of W? ? ?y such i?e?nt ?d ple? ?wem m ? ?ke ? o? ?vslent ? a ?6on by the U? S? of a ?r? convemion of p?va? p?rW, eo?it? by an ?y o?r in time of ?. ?e U? S? ?ve?ent ? exp?ly ?z? "ex?utive ?tion by the War ?partment . . . ? not due p?m of ?w." 22 0?. Arty. ?n. 518. ?neral B?ke's o?er wm not, even in ?, includ? ? 'the ratification of the P?tt ?endment. By the exp? H?tion of that s?tu? ? "? figh?" a? ?der the ? of the Ame?n ?tmtion of ?b? ?, it cl?ly ? tMt figh? ?ght ? c?m? the?der w?ch wo?d not ? ?M?, ?d th? it ?d not at?mpt ? retry. It did not p?rt ? deal ?th s p?tic? ?t of a ? o?r tmmfe? somet?ng ?lo? ? A. over ? B. ? ?y event, ?neml Br?ke ? in?d?y ?ble for ? ?rtiom act, ?tive of gove?en?l d?ction or rstifi?- tion. '? v. Bar?, 2 Crunch, 170. ?d ? T? C?i? ?, 2 C?ch, ?; S?a? v. M?, 3 C?eh, ?; M? v. Hazy, 13 How. 115; ?ar v. McD?, 6 Wa?. 3?; Cam? v. N?, 94 U. S. ?5; Ba? v. C?rk, 95 U.S. ?4; K? v. T?ps?, 103 U.S. 1?; Un? S? v. ?, 1? U.S. 196; V?n? C? C?, 114 U.S. 2?; In re Aye, 1? U.S. ?; M? v? Virgins, 135 U.S. ?2; B?p v. Sch?, 161 U.S. 10. ?aeml Br?ke's act wm a t?p? u?n p?nt?'s p?y figh? ?d she w? entitl? ? jud?nent. The e? ?ving ?n tfi? by the co?t ?thout s j?, by w?ver, the dec,ion of the trial judge ? concl?ive ?d ?v? lent ? the ve?ct of a j?. O?r? C?, 195 U.S. ?
�
