Weekly national intelligencer., 1863-08-20

that another eoarnarial be organized for the trial Of the
pending
Itis further ordered that this review be published in
the army ana Navy 9szste as an erpression g the strong
d'sapproOat ,oh uheh the action Of this court IS regarded
BY the Department"
Here, then, We have the spectacle of General
Court Martial dissolved purely for not doing what
the Secretary holds they ought to have done, and
another court summoned to take cognizance of the
cases now pending. What is the irresistible in
ference? The members of the late court swore
we'll and truly to try aud determine, according
ted States of America and the prisoner to be tried
They swore "duly to administer justice according
to the provisions of act esta olishing rules and
articles for the government of the armies of
the United States aoithom partially, f,,vor, or
a6ection." And they swore that if any doubt
shall arise not explained by said articles they
would dispense justice " according to their con-
science, the beat Of their understanding, and The
custom of acar IN like cases." Such were the
sanctions under which the late court acted Is it
expected that the members Of the new court, after
teking the same oath, will try and determine cases
otherwise than according to evidence" other
wise than according to the "articles of war;"
otherwise than "without partialy favor, or affec-
ton," or otherwise than according to their con-
science, the best of their understanding, and the
custom of war in like casesw If not, why is
q new court needed otry the cases now pending?"
If all derogatory expectations are to be put out of
question it can only be for the reason that the
new court is supposed to be more intelligent than
the one dismissed, and therefore more capable to
administer military justice. The comparative in
telligence of tn" two tribunals is not matter Of
infallible ascertSinment but we give the names of
the aewy summoned court, and leave our readers to
judge whether they have been selected with refer
ence to their superiority over the late tribunal on
the score of either general intelligence, military
experience, or legal knowledge. They are as fol-
lows:
Brig. Gen j. NJ Slough, of U. s. Volunteers, President
Col Alex Piper, Tenth New York Artillery; Col Robt W.
Hudson, Additional Aide deCamp; Col j N G. Whist
ler, Second New York Artillsry COL Albert Tracy Ad
disional Ade-de Camp; Capt Joseph A. Slipper Assis
J-wett, John r. Howard, and John c. Hopper Add
tiona Ades-de Camp, members and Major Theo. Gaines
Judge Advocate.
These gentlemen are greatly to be commiserated
Without any fault of their own they have been
placed in position where, however purely they
may administer justice, shadow of suspicion
must rest on all their proceedings. They may
indeed turn out to be as blundering as the
Secretary holds their predecessors to have been.
If SO, they will be dismissed in like disgrace.
But, if they shall escape rebuke and di,solu-
ton, then the people will suspect that they have
been, not more intelligent than their predecessors,
but only more compliant with the Secretary's
Dracopian views of military justice. However
we'll and truly they may try and determine all
the cases before them, they placed between the
Scylla of the Secretarys displeasure and the
Charybdis of the peoples suspicion.
1t is new thing in the history of American
jurisprudcnce-this rebuke and intimidation of
courts The readers of early English history are
familiar, however, with some of the precedents
which may be held to justify it. We quote from
Hallam's Constitutional History of Eogland in re-
lation to the period embraced between the reigns
of Henry VII and Mary:
I'VE naturally astonished at the easness with which
treason ou evideace insufficient support the ch,rge
int of law in s nature not to be received
unworthy Of belief But this is explained by the peril
that hung the Jury in of acqual IT. Sir
Thomas Smith, in his Treatise the Commonwealth OF
England they do pronounce not guilty upon the prisoner
against whom manifest witness brought the petitioner
escapes, but the twelve the jury not only rbuksd By
the judges but also threatened OF punishment aud many
times led &, appear in the Sar Chamber before
the Prvy Cuuucl for the matter But this threatening
chanceth ofen-r than the execution thereof and the
ing TO their conscences and pray the judges to be good
Snto them they did they thoug ht right AID a. they
corded all and it pssseih away for the part Yet
have seen IN my me but not in the reign OF the King
now that inquest f r prnouncDg not guilty II
treason contrary to such evidence brought
not only imprisoned for space but large fine set up
tn. .r heads, which they forced tn pay another in
quest for acquiting snoher besides paying fine,
put to open ignomiuy and shame But these doings
then accounted of many for violent tyrsnnca and
contrary to the liberty and custom OF the realm OF Eng
land
This custom continued to prevail to some extent
in the reign of Elizabeth, and it was attempted by
Chief Justices Keeling and Hyde to re-estabish
the practice of reprimandiDg and fning juiies
after the Restoration, but the prac ice too
obsolete to take root again, and, moreover, the
Parliament declared that such things could no
longer be done in the British realm.
The conduct of Mr.. Stanton in rebuking and
Furnishing by dissolution the late Court-Martial
bears all the initial features of attack the