PREVENTION OF ESCAPE 1617. If a sentinel guarding prisoners shoots at an escaping prisoner and brings him down, a thorough investigation should be made and, where circumstances warrant it, the sentinel charged with the most serious offense, if any, of which he may have been guilty. If investigation shows no offense or dereliction of duty on the part of the sentinel, he should not be brought to trial. 250.4, Aug. 2, 1918. RESTORATION TO DUTY 1618. General prisoners serving sentences for desertion in time of war, whether in a disciplinary barracks or in a penitentiary, may be restored to duty by the Secretary of War. Such men should not be restored to duty as a class, but each case should be decided on its own facts. 319.12, Jan. 2, 1918. REWARD OR EXPENSES FOR APPREHENSION 1619. An enlisted man sentenced to confinement by a general court-martial was paroled. The parole was subsequently revoked. Held, That he thereupon became an escaped prisoner, and that under the provisions of paragraph 121, Army Regulations (AR 35-2620), the city detective who apprehended him and delivered him to proper military authority was entitled to be paid $50 reward. 251, June 17, 1918. TRANSPORTATION 1620. A discharged general prisoner applied to a railway company for a refund of the unused portion of a ticket given in exchange for a transportation request issued to him on his discharge, in accordance with the act of March 2, 1913 (37 Stat. 715). Transportation was furnished from New York to Chicago, Ill., but he had used the ticket only as far as Buffalo, N. Y. Held, That the Government could claim no right to refund in respect of the unused portion of the ticket furnished the prisoner, and that the matter was one for arrangement between the railroad company and the holder of the unused portion of the ticket. 94-322, Mar. 10, 1914. Similarly, held with respect to the redemption of the unused portion of a ticket obtained on a transportation request issued to a rejected applicant for enlistment for his return to the station where he was accepted for enlistment. 94-330, June 1, 1914; June 17, 1914. Provision for transportation to their homes of prisoners on discharge is found in current appropriation act for support of the War Department. Question whether dishonorably discharged military prisoners en route to places of confinement or from one place of confinement to another prior to the completion of their terms of confinement are "troops of the United States" within meaning of statutes providing for the payment for transportation of troops on land-grant railroads. There can be no doubt that to be "troops of the United States" within the meaning of the statutes in question (act of Mar. 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 453; act of June 5, 1920, 41 Stat. 948, 960), persons must be soldiers-must be members of the armed forces of the United States. * * It is, of course, clear that persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the military service, as in the cases under consideration, have ceased to be soldiers in every sense of the term. They are not amenable to military service except as are all other civilians, and are not actually members of the armed forces of the United States. Whatever disciplinary control over them the War Department may have, or whatever obligations toward them the Government may bear, arise wholly by virtue of the fact that they are prisoners, not because they are soldiers. The fact that the United States is bound to pay for the care and necessary transportation of such persons does not alter their status, and can not be said to make them soldiers or troops" within the purview of the land-grant acts. The fact that the persons under consideration are "military" prisoners— that is, were formerly members of the Army and were sentenced to confinement by military courts-does not affect their status within the meaning of the statutes, their status as soldiers having completely terminated by their dishonorable discharges, and the statutes and regulations charging the Military Establishment with their temporary care not operating to renew their former status as soldiers, or to change their present status from that of discharged soldiers. 253, June 19, 1922. 1621-1634. MILITARY ACADEMY. 1635-1638. CITIZENS' MILITARY TRAINING CAMPS. 1639-1656. RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. 1657-1658. RIFLE PRACTICE. 1659. TEXTBOOKS AND MANUALS. Secs. MILITARY ACADEMY 1621-1623. ADMISSION. 1624-1627. APPOINTMENT OF CADETS. 1628. CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES. 1629. FILIPINO CADETS. 1630. FUNDS. 1631-1633. PERSONNEL. 1634. READMISSION. ADMISSION Secs. 1621. AGE LIMITS. 1622. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS. 1623. MORAL QUALIFICATIONS. AGE LIMITS 1621. The general rule regarding age limits for admission to the Military Academy is laid down in R. S. 1318. R. S. 1325 makes exceptions of cadets recommended for readmission after discharge for deficiency in conduct or studies. Discharge for physical disability, not being within such exception, is covered by the general provisions of R. S. 1318. 851.11, Sept. 12, 1924. EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 1622. The Academic Board of the United States Military Academy, under the provisions of R. S. 1319, as amended by act of March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. 911), and section 57, Regulations for the United States Military Academy, 1920, has the discretionary authority to accept or reject certificates from accredited institutions relating to the educational qualifications for candidates for admission to the Military Academy. This authority is limited to acceptance or rejection based on the existence or nonexistence of educational or mental qualifications which are evidenced by the certificates themselves. But such board is not authorized to reject certificates on the ground that the persons submitting them failed at an entrance examination at the Naval Academy prior to the completion of the work evidenced by the certificates submitted. 351.281, Mar. 28, 1923; Apr. 25, 1923. Paragraph 57, Regulations, United States Military Academy, 1920, limits the discretion of the Academic Board, in considering certificates from accredited schools submitted in lieu of mental examination, to acceptance or rejection of certificates on the facts evidenced by the certificates themselves, if they are the latest qualifying or disqualifying facts. A failure in certain subjects at the Naval Academy subsequent to the date of the certificate may be considered by the Academic board as showing that the certificate does not in fact evidence the qualifications which it purports to evidence, and the certificate may be rejected on the ground that it is not acceptable; provided, however, sufficient facts are known to enable the Board to determine that the failure was not due to sickness, absence, or other factors at the Naval Academy rather than to lack of mental qualifications. 351.281, Apr. 25, 1923. MORAL QUALIFICATIONS 1623. Candidates for appointment to the United States Military Academy are required by law to be examined under regulations to be framed by the Secretary of War and to be well versed in subjects prescribed by him, before be ing admitted to the academy. (R. S. 1319, as amended by act of March 2, 1901, 31 Stat. 911.) Paragraph 57, Regulations, United States Military Academy, 1920, provides that the Academic Board will consider and may accept in lieu of mental examination certain certificates from accredited schools or colleges. The ground of acceptance or nonacceptance of such a certificate is that in the opinion of the Board the certificate does or does not show mental or educational qualifications for admission. The Academic Board has no legal authority to reject such a certificate on the ground that the candidate is not eligible for appointment because of dismissal from the Naval Academy for misconduct (striking a classmate). The determination of the effect of matters relating to the past conduct of the candidate has been reserved to the appointing power and not delegated to the Academic Board. 351.281, Feb. 23, 1923. APPOINTMENT OF CADETS Secs. 1624. FROM CANAL ZONE. 1625. FROM ENLISTED MEN. 1626. FROM SONS OF ARMY OFFICERS. 1627. WITHDRAWAL. FROM CANAL ZONE 1624. On request for an opinion on the propriety of the War Department recommending the reservation of one of the cadetships at large, United States Military Academy, for civilian residents of the Panama Canal Zone, it was Held, That, as the Canal Zone is not a State of the Union, nor an incorporated territory or district, but unincorporated territory (J. A. G., Oct. 30, 1915), its inhabitants, as such, are subjects, not citizens, of the United States, and it is not included in the term "United States at large" as appearing in Chapter XXII, act of July 9, 1918 (40 Stat. 894), prescribing the composition of the Corps of |