Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-06-18
Er pane-C. l. Yanandigham--Ha6eas corpus


This is before the court the petition Of Clement
L. Vaandigham, citizen OF Ohio alleging that he was
unlawfuy arrested at his home in Dayton In this State
the night Of the 5h of May instant BY detachment OF
soldiers OF army Of the United States acting under the
orders AmbroseE Burnside Major General the Army
OF the United States brought against bis WILL to the city
of Cincinnati where he has been subjected to trial
Military Commission and is still detained in custody and
restrained Of his liberty The petitioner also that he
is not in the land naval service Of the United States and
has been called into active service in the militia OF any
State and that his arrest detention and trial. set forth
bis petition, illegal and in violation OF the Constitu
ton Of the United States The prayer 10 that writ OF
habeas corpus issue requiring Gen Burnside 20 pro-
duce body of the petitioner before this court with the
cause OF his caption and detention Accompanying the
petition lie statement of the charges or specifications on
which he alleges he tried before the Military Commis-
sion For the purposes of this decision it 10 not necessary
to notice these charges specially but may be stated in
bef that they mpute to the petitioner the utterance OF
sundry dsloya opinions aud statements 10 public speech
at the Mt Vernon the State OF Ohio on the Let
Of May instant with the knowledge that they did ad,
and comfort and encourage those in arms against the
Government and could but induce in his hearers dis
trust in their Government and sympathy for those
in arms against it, and disposition to resist the Laws Of
the land The petitioner does not state what the judR-
ment of the Military Commission is nor is the court
informed whether he has been condemned or acquitted
on the charges exhibited against him.
1t proper to remark here that on the presentation OF
the petition the court stated to the counsel for Mr. Val
andgham that according to the ussges OF the court a
well other courts Of high authority the writ was not
grantabls Of course, and would only be allowed on
sufficient showing that it ought to issue. The court 10 en-
TREY satisfied Of the correctness OF the course thus ind
Gated The subject fully examined by the learned
Justice Swayne when present the presiding Judge OF this
court petition for habeas corpus, presented at the
Last October term to which further reference will
be presently made shall only note the authorities
this pent which to be entirely conclusive Peters
Dol, Cushing H. 1856 Hurd on habeas corpus, 222, 8,
In pursuance of this ruling order was made by the
that notice be given to Gen Burnside OF the pen
dency in the Of the application for the writ to the
end that he might appear by counsel or otherwise OPP
pose ts granting Of the writ That distinguished General
has accordingly presented respectful communication to
the court stating generally and argmeutavey the
Of the arrest of Mr. Vaandgham aud has also authorized
able counsel to represent him in resistance OF the appca
length and with great ability on the motion for its al
lowance.
II proper TO remark, further that whom the petition
presented the made distinct references to the
decision of this court in the case Of Bethuel Rupert
October term 1861 before noticed an authoritative
precedent for its action this application On full re-
lection do not see how it possible for me- ng alone
in the circuit court to ignore the decision mad, upon full
consideration by Justice Swayne with the concurrence OF
myself and which, reerable to all cases involving the
principle must be regarded the law Of this court
until reversed by higher court The case OF Rupert was
substantially the that OF the present petitioner
He set out in bis petition what he alleged to be an nnaw
ful arrest by the order Of military oicer, on charge
mputng TO him acts Of doysly to the Government and
sympathy with the rebellion against il, and an unlawful
detention and imprisonment the resut Of such order
The application, however, in the case OF Rupert differed
one now before Ine court,
exhibited intended TO dsprove the charge of dsoya
conduct imputed to hm and also 10 this, that there
pretence showing by Rupert that there bad been
any investigation or trial by any court OF the charges
against him.
The petition in this addressed TO the Judges Of
the Circuit Court and not to single judge Of that court
II FROM the absence OF Mr. Justice Swsyne that the
District Judge holding the Circuit Court he 10
authorized to do by law But thus sitting would IL not
be n violation Of all settled rules OF Judicial practice,
well of courtesy, for the District Judge 10 de-
cts hoth tudup
the bench IL 10 well known that the Dstrict Judge
though authorized to cit with the Circuit Judge in the Cir
cult Court does not occupy the osl position, and
that the latter Judge when present. Qcio. the pre-
siding judge obvious that confusion and uncertainty
greatly impang the respect due TO the adudcatons OF
the Circuit Courts Of the United States would result from
the assumption Of such exercise Of power BY the Dis
tct Judge II would not only be dsrespecol 70 the su
perior Judge but would eyince in the Dfstot Judge az