80. n Re Di Bartolo (D. C. New York 1943) 50 Fed. Supp. 929.
Walker v. Chief Quarantine Officer (D. C. Canal Zone 1943)
69 Fed. Supp. 980. Greive v. France (D. C. Wisconsin, 1948)
75 Fed. Supp. 435. Ex Parte Falls (D. C. New Jersey 1918)
251 Fed. 415. In Re Thomas (D. C. Mississippi 1869) Federal
case No.13,888. 
 
             There is another feature inherent in the
American system of military tribunals that is pertinent to
this discussion. That feature is that a courts-martial may
be validly appointed only by an officer who exercises a
command superior to that possessed by the accused (Articles
of War 8, 9 and 10) U. S. C. A. 1479, 1480 and 1481.
 
             Under this system Captain X who is in command
of an infantry company may be tried by a   special
courts-martial appointed by Colonel Y, the commanding
officer of his regiment. Colonel Y in his turn may be tried
by a courts-martial appointed by the commanding general of
the division to which the regiment is attached. If charges
should be preferred against the division commander his
superior must appoint a court to try him. It becomes
apparent that since the President sits at the very apex of
the pyramid of military authority this system is not
designed to try charges preferred against him. We must look
to the
Constitution of the United States to find such provisions.
 
               Aside from the sentence of a duly constituted
courts-martial there is only one other method by which an
individual officer or 
 
                                                  -12-