Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1863-08-07

8. to the laws of war; for these have been subst
tuted Tor the laws of peace"
n 1t may be that in the execution of this ru
the Executive or military branch of the Go,
erDment has in some cases exercised its author
lty when we deem it unnecessary and impo
r. itic During war much must be left TO mil
tary discretion. Judge Hall endeavored I
aid the British in 1915, Gen. jackson prompt
: ly suppressed him. Vallandigham was actual
: : iy aiding the public enemies; he interferret
with military authority. Gen. Burnside ex
PEELED him beyond our lines. Both acts hav
been denounced tyranical and impolitc Bot
would be denounced by the civil laws il
time of peace-both are justified by the law
of war in time OF war
II in time Of war the acts of the citizer
plainly aid the public enemy or obstruct any
of the necessary operations of the general, ht
must suppress them. The design must he i'm
mediately palpable and pressing, and the act,
complained of must be an obstruction OF mil
tary authority. So Gen. Burnside regarded
the acts and speeches of Mr.. v, and for these
be was tried by the only tribunal known to
military law. Let US look at the facts. Gen.
Burnside was charged by the President with
the defense of Ohio, Kentucky aud Indiana,
and enemies were then making forays within
his military district, killing. robbing and plum
dering our citizens. He had to depend upon
/ his soldiers and such citizens as could be in
duced to enlist, to repel and overcome these
enemies. But for his army, guerrilIas under
John Morgan and their rebel chiefs, could
have overrun the whole of the States of Ken.
lucky, Indiana and Ohio, spreading every
| where the horrors and desoIations of war
/ When Nallandigham was arrested there were
open and secret organizations within this
/ State 10 induce our soldiers 10 desert-tO pro-
lect them from arrest, or to prevent enlist
ments. This was known to Gen Burnside
and every other citizen. Vaandigham was
actively engaged exciting hostility to the Gov
ernment, to the war, and to all constitu ed
authorities. He had made himself UNANIMOUSLY
prominent in opposing every measure of Ma
tional defense. The sure insiicts of the rebels
and all at home who were organized to resist
| the laws, pointed him out to them as their
enemy. Cunning, malignant and yet cover
ing his operations with the forms of law, he
was doing all that one man could to aid the
rebels in 1heir attempts to overthrow the Gov
ernment
On the 18th of April last Cen Burnside is.
sued General Order No. 36. notifying all per-
sous within our lines "who commit acts for the
benefit Gf the enemies OF our country, that
they will be tried as spies or traitors" After
specifying different offences that would be
punished, he says: ''The habit o declaring
sympathy for the enemy viii not be allowed
in this department Persons committing such
bf,
of being tried as above stated, or sent beyond
our lines into the lines of their friends" A few
days after this order was issued, and when it
was well known, Mr.. V. went to Mt Vernon
and made speech. Upon that speech be was
! accused or charged III the ordinary torn of a
military accusation, with publicly expressing
sympathy for those in arms against the the
Government OF the U. s. and declaring dis
loyal sentiments and opinions with the object
and purpose of weakening the power of the
Government in its efforts 10 suppress an unlaw-
iul rebellion" On this charge he was tried
before court IRaiuly composed of his politi-
cal friends, aad not one member of which he
objected to, The trial was open, witnesses
were examined on both sides; the facts were
plain, simple aBd scarcely controverted,
and he was found guilty Guilty of what2
OF aiding the public enemy in time Of war
and of Obstruciing our military authorities in
suppressing the rebellion. He was guilty. of
precisely the offence OF j Ohm Morgan, JEFF. Da-
WIS., and other rebels, except, that his manner
of rendering laid and comfort" to the public
enemy was less dangerous to him personally
than theirs.
Now what was the duty of Gen. Burnside
under these circumstances There was no
doubt of this mans guilt, He believed these
acts plainly obstructed his measures Of defence.
He considered them far more injurious than
the open acts of murder and robbery commit
mitted by the rebels far worse than the de-
sertion o a sOdier-meaner than the act of a
spy. Should he be turned over to the Grim
nal Courts to be tried sometime in the future
for Treason, aud in the meantime free to sap
and ruin the authority of the Government
What do the rebels do with loyal people un-
der like circumstances? They hang their
enemies at home to the nearest tree. What
would they do TO Gov, johnson if he should
speak for the Union to his neighbors in East
Tennessee2 We know by the fate of thou
sands, And yet this convicted Traitor of ours,
by the humanity of our Government, is sim
ply placed in safety beyond our lines
But ii is said his offense was committed in
region where the courts open and the or
dinary course of the civil law is undisturbed
There are many offeuses that may be punished
by military authority, even in the midst of the
most peaceful communities. The breach of
discipline of camp, the act of spy, the de-
seFtion of a soldier, an attempted riot or mu-
tiuy, and many similar ofenses are properly
punished by military authority, even in the
presence of a civil court, The boundary be-
tween there classes of offenses is not and can
not be defined. Nor is there any danger to
our liberties from this military power The
accused may apply to Judge of competent
jurisdiction for the benefit OF the writ of ha-
beas corpus. The Judge must then determine
whether the writ has been legally suspended
and whether the offense is military or civil
one. This was done in the case of Vallandig-
ham: Judge Leavitt, of the U. 5. Court, af-
ter full hearing, decided that the accusation
was one under the jurisdiction of the military
tribunals, and the writ was therefore denied
will not, fellow citizens, pursue the argu-
ment as to the legality OF the arrest and con-
viction of Mr.. v any further. Suppose him
illegally convicted OF aiding the rebels, will
you, therefore, make him Governor of Ohio ?
Will you trnst u thief who was irregulaIly
convicted with the custody of your property?
Will you trust a murderer, who, upon writ
of error, is discharged for defects in the in
dctment, with the defense of your person? -
Will you trust Traitor, who can be proven
only by one witness to be guilty, with your
political power? Let not the men who by
the election of Vallandigham, seek to put the