The Chattanooga Daily Rebel. [volume] (Chattanooga, Tenn.) 1862-1864, 1863-02-01
Faosl nUs4s,ILLE.
yial Correspondence Of the Rebel

I
in former letter, citizen Of this place wat
indicted last week by the Grand Jury for trea
son against the Confederate States 4 molten
was made before his Honor Judge Jenes by
his counsel thai he be admitted 10 BAIL which
molten was to-day ably argued by Messrs
Walker and Brickell on the part If the Jeien
dant, and by Mr. Reqaicr en- behalf Of the
prosecution. It's notmy purpose to give any
opinion as TO the guilt or innocence otthe defen'
daut. or to speak Of the testimony, as the case
has TO undergo judicial investigation. As il
is, however, case Of great interest involving
important legal propositions ] propose to
state briefly the points made, both on the part
of the defendant and of the prosecution
listened 10 the argument with great interest,
though | feel that | am unable to state the
positions taken by tile counsel with anything
like the precision and elcarness with which
they were argued before his Honor. On the
part of the defendant il was insisted that it
required the testimony of at least two witness
es 10 establish the crime Of treason, and that
until the crime was thus established, no mere
corroborative testimony could be heard, and
therefore the declarations Of the defendant
we're not competent proof to establish the Of
fence that II the offence had been proved by
two witnesses, then the declarations of the
defendant might be heard to show his inten.
ton, but not otherwise. Again, il was insist,
ed that if the offence of treason had been
proved, that the testimony Of two witnesses
was necessary to identify the accused With
that offence, and that until this was done, the
declarations of the defendant could not be adj
mitted as competent proof. The counsel ar
gued strenuousy that as the offence of trea-
son had not been proved by two Witnesses and
that even if it had that as the defendant bad
not been shown by the testimony Of two wit
nesses to be connected herewith that the
Court could not look to his declarations as
proof of the crime. Further, it was argued
that if his declarations were excluded, as coun-
sci commended should be done, then there was
no probable cause for believing him guilty as
charged in the bill of indictment end he must
be admitted to bail Another point made and
very zealously pressed was, that by the Code
of Alabann, all cases were bailabls unless the
party was charged with capital offence, and
that If the Court was of opinion that the proof
was not sufficient to warrant conviction for
a capital offence the defendant was entitled, as
a matter of right, to be admitted to bail. The
act Of the Confederate Congress establishing a
Judiciary system, the Code of Alabama and
two cases one in 2Sth and the other in 30th
Alabama, were read to sustain This position.
The counsel for the defendant insisted that
whether the prisoner should be admitted TO
bail was matter left to the sound discretion
Of the Court and that if his Honor were salts
fed that there was not sufficient legal proof to
establish the guilt of The defendant, or at least
to create probable cause TO believe him gull
ty, then he was entitled to bail. at was con-
tended by the counsel for tho defense that il
the object Of the defendant was local and per.
sona and not to overthrow the Government,
then it would not be treason, and authorities
we're quoted to sustain this position. These
ware as well as recolIect, substantially the
positions taken by the able counsel for the
defence.
They then proceeded to argue the facts to
show that there was not sufficient proof 10
make out case Of guilt, or Of probable cause
to believe him guilty. / will not comment up
on the facts, nor upon the argument thereon
as the matter will have TO undergo further in,
yestgatiou. The Attorney on behalf Of the
prosecution controverted many of the posi-
tons taken by the opposite counsel. He in
sisted that in cases Of indictment for treason
bail could not be granted, and referred to the
opinion Of Chief Justice Marshall in Burri
case. He conteuded that no case could be
found where after the Grand Jury had found
d bill Of indictment for treason, had bail beer
granted He read the Act Of Congress Of tn,
United States, which had been made the law o
the Confederate States, to show that when
man had been arrested upon charge Of hay
ing committed capital offence, that il wal
left to the discretion OF tho Court whether h,
should bo admitted TO bail, bnt no insistcc
that this was not the case after III! oIindiot
ment for high treason had been found by
Grand Jury He contended that the Act 0
Congress referred TO by counsel on the 9th
or side related to matters Of form, and not o
substance, and therefore the code Of alabawl
and the decisions referred to, had nothing Il
do with the case. He further contendcd iha
the crime Of treason might be committed al
though the party had never in fact taken ~
arms against the Government, as If for instanc
the p6rty lad assisted in procuring commissa
/ q. Ia a.