Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-05-31

j MS law nau DeeD tOnk SuouSh III
he known to every individual liable to mih'ia
duty. A similar law existed in the state .,
Tennessee, and still existed at the momen. inc
draft of militia from that State was caieu OUT
In the early part Of 1912, before the deciara',on
Of war, another law was passed authorizing :
militia service Of six months, TO continue 'n
force for two years. Onthe 18th April, .isia,
after the expiration, by its own terms, OF TINS
law. Congress passed another law giving to the
President authority to call them out fora peri
cd not exceeding six months, ;,
The order, By which General Jackson called
into service the Tennessee T%iilitia, Of WHICH
the six executed men formed a part, was dated
the oath. May, 1914. As General Jackson was
at that time only a Militia General, It follows
that. he must have acted under the orders oithe
Governor Of Tennessee, and that, OF course, the
Governors orders must have been issued some
time prior to that date. We will not stop to
inquire whether the Governor Of Tennessee, IN
the short interval between the 18Th OF April,
and the oath of May, 1914, had received notice
Of the law of Congress: we may even admit,
that he had notice Of il; and that il was, with
the knowledge OF that law, and under the au.
thority of the President-which last, however,
is not asserted, and no where ap2ears-that ne
directed General Jackson to call out the Militia
of The State. We may admit all this to be true:
but we know that however rapid may be the
communication Of Intelligence from The Gene
raj Government TO the Governments OF the
STATES, the people of the States often remain ig-
norant of the passage Of a law for a much long
er period than that which interviewed between
the 18th of April and the oath Of May.
Would il be unna,ursi-wou'd il be extraor-
dinary-would it be improbable-,ha, the mill
tia of Tennessee-even admitting that their Go
vernor-which Is not asserted-was acquainted
with the law, and that he acted under the author
ity OF the President, which the law made nsces-
sary;-is il, we say, either unnatural, extraordi
nary, or improbable, that the men thus called
into service should be ignorant Of any other
law than that Of 1895, and the corresponding
law Of their own State by which they had been
governed for nearly twenty years? That their
officers were ignorant Of any other law, is as
serted by the officers themselves on trial, and is
not cohtradicted. We may fairly presume,
then, tina, the priva,es-the men who were exc
c~uted-knew nothing Of the passage Of a law
which authorized their being held In service
for six months.
II they did not know Of this law-if they were
told by their officers, as appears from the trial,
that there was no such law-if, as is proved by
all the witnesses on he trial, they conducted
themselves well until their departure from the
camp--whst was their crime? Admitting all
that the Committee have alledged-taking for
granted, wha, is neither asserted nor probable,
tina, they were called into service by order Of
the President, did they deserve the punishment
Of death FOR their ignorance? Even surprising
- -. - ,,-. ., a.. -..
unanimous hero, in the moment Of victory, in
the paroxism of gratitude which agilated the
community in which these mer were confined
in irons, to order their execution-and their
execution, too, within ur days after they should
hear Of The OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES III
our estimate OF what belongs to a Hero, but We
confess we could never apply that term to a
man who could thus act.
We may say more Of this Committee hereaf
ter. TRUTH.