Law of Arms. Certain acknowledged rules, regulations, and precepts, which relate to war; and are observed by all civilized nations. The laws of arms also show how to proclaim war, to attack the enemy, and to punish offenders in the camp, etc.
Law of Nations. Such general rules as regard the embassies, reception and entertainment of strangers, intercourse of merchants, exchange of prisoners, suspension of arms, etc.
Laws, Execution of. On all occasions when the troops are employed in restoring or maintaining public order among their fellow-citizens, the use of arms, and particularly fire-arms, is obviously attended with loss of life or limb to private individuals; and for these consequences, a military man may be called to stand at the bar of a criminal court. A private soldier also may occasionally be detached on special duty, with the necessity of exercising discretion as to the use of his arms; and in such cases he is responsible, like an officer, for the right use or exercise of such discretion.
Some years ago, the public journals of London recorded the meritorious behavior of a private sentry, upon the occasion of a riotous mob assembled at the entrance of Downing-Street with the intention of attacking the government offices in that quarter of the town. This man standing alone presented his musket, and threatened to fire upon the crowd, if the slightest attempt were made to approach the particular office for the defense of which he was placed on duty, and succeeded by the terror thus created, though at a great risk of consequences to himself, in keeping the rioters at bay until a larger force arrived to assist him. The soldier’s conduct was publicly much approved. It was also clearly legal according to Macadam’s case (a soldier tried before the courts of Scotland in 1735); and if after the announcement of his intentions the mob had pressed forward to execute their purpose, he would have been held justified at law in firing at the rioters upon his own responsibility. The Duke of Wellington, as Constable of the Tower, testified his marked approbation of this man’s conduct, by promoting him at once to a wardership at that fortress.
The right of officers or soldiers to interfere in quelling a felonious riot, whether with or without superior military orders, or the direction of a civil magistrate, is quite clear, and beyond the possibility of mistake. This subject, however, was formerly little understood; and military men failed in their public duty through excess of caution.
But notwithstanding the existence of a clear right and duty on the part of military men voluntarily to aid in the suppression of a riot, it would be the height of imprudence to intrude with military force, except upon the requisition of the proper authority, unless in those cases where the civil power is obviously overcome, or on the point of being overcome, by the rioters.
When the civil officer may not deem it safe to wait for the orders of government, he should address his requisition for troops, not to any subordinate military officer, but to the highest authority, to whom he should communicate his object in making it, and all the information he may possess regarding the strength and designs of those by whom the public peace is menaced or disturbed. His duty is confined to these points. He has no authority in directing military operations. The officer commanding the troops has alone authority to determine the number and nature of those to be employed; the time and manner of making the attack, and every other operation for the reduction of the enemy.
Under no circumstances can U. S. troops be called into service at the “polls.”
In the United States, regular troops can be ordered only to serve against rioters, or other lawless bands of citizens, under the orders of the President to co-operate with the civil authorities.
It should ever be the aim of military men to attain the desired end by the exercise of passive interposition.