Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1861-10-01
Treason-MartiaI Law and Habeas Cor
nnn-A II acnnnf CnaA


According to the Constitution, "Treasen
against the United States shall consist only
in levying war against them or in adhering
to their enemies, giving them aid and COM
fort" The statute law for the punishment
of treason provides that ''If any person or
persons, owing allegiance to the United
States of America, shall levy war against
them, or shall adhere to their enemies, Civ
ing them aid and comfort, within the United
States or elsewhere, and shall thereof be
convicted on confession in open court OF
on the testimony of two witnesses to the
same overt act of the treason whereof he OF
they shall stand indicted, such person OF
persons shall be adiudged guilty of treason
against the United States, and shall suffer
DEATH"
In general the crime of treason is cogniza-
bic by the Courts of the United States hav-
ing criminal jurisdiction; and the statute
which defines the offense contemplates the
proceeding against the offender by indict-
ment, as in other cases of criminalIcharac-
ter. So long as the local peace remains undis-
turbed, and the lawful courts are permitted
10 luclE OuklCo WlluOub OOblEuCblOuf
the arrest, prosecution and trial of persons
charged with treason should follow the
same course that it does when there is no
war in existence; for there is no propriety in
making the fact that there is civil disturb
ance in one locality pretext for superseding
the regular administration of the law in an
other.
1t would, perhaps, be goingtoo far to affirm
that, in no case, can persons charged with
- the crime Of treason be properly tried and
punished by a military tribunal. The ex-
tension of the power of court martial beyond
the psTsondle of the army takes place under
two states of circumstances: when the pro-
ceedings of the courts of law have been OBJ
structed by force; and when their officers
are suspected ofa want Of loyalty. In either
of these cases, the law martial, with its
judiciary, comes in with no legislative limit
to its jurisdiction, and with powers COM
mensurate to the necessity which has in
Voked its inter+@tion; but until the con-
tingency arrives, there is nOpower resting in
any party, civil or military, to change or
Obstruct, or abreviate the ordinary processes
of law in respect 10 treason or any other
crime known to the statute.
We observe, in the case of several person:
arrested in Kentucky, by the regular officers
of the civil law, and afterward delivered into
the hands Of the military in this city, that i
seemed to be considered that their transfe
from the civil to the military hand had placed
them beyond the reach Of the writ o
habeas corpus, and that this military posses
sion was evidently looked upon by those VIII
exercised IT, as Of itself sufficient groun
for refusing obedience to the writ.
We suspect that this is not just view @
the case. That the privilege of the writ {
hGbeas corpus may be suspended is true bu
that it should only be suspended for goo
aud sufficient cause is equally so-that caus
being the inability of the legal courts TO tr
the case properly on account of the publ
disturbance, or the suspected unfaithfulnes
ofthe court upon which the trial would de
yolYe. If either ofthese contingencies shoul
arise, It would be the duty of the command
ing officer Of the district or locality to max
II tknown by some public act or declaration
at the same time establishing the proper tr
bunal and appointing its judicial and eHecu
tive officers; and until this is done the keel
ers of persons arrested by the civil arm
whether they are soldiers or others, can Onl
be considered % holding possession Of thel