The Highland weekly news. [volume] (Hillsborough [Hillsboro], Highland County, Ohio) 1853-1886, 1863-05-28
THE VALLANDTGHAM CASE.
JUDGE LEAvITTs DECISION,
writ Of Habeas corpus Refused.


Writ of Habeas Corpus Refused
AT ten o'clock on Saturday morning
the Circuit court room was crowded to
hear the decision of Judge Leavitt in
the application of G, L. Vnllardigham
for a writ of haLeds corpus. The follow
ing is the decision of.the Court: /
Er parte-C Il. VaHandigham-Ha
beas Corpus
This case is before the Court on the
petition of Clement i. Vallandigham, a
citizen of Ohio, alleging that he was un-
lawfully arrested at his home in Dayton,
in this State, CO the night of the 9th of
May, inst, by detachment of soldiers
of the army of the United States, act.
ing under the orders of Ambrose E.
Burnside, Major General in the army
of the United States, and brought,
against his will, to the city of .Cincin-
natl, where he has been su bjected to a
trial before a Military Commission, and
is still detained in custody and restrain
ed of his liberty. The petitioner also
AYERS that be is not in the land or naval
service of the United States, and has
not been called into active service in the
militia of any State; and that his arrest,
I
detention and trial, as set forth in his
petition, are Illegal, and in violation Of
the Constitution Of the United States.
The prayer is, that writ of habeas cor
pus may issue, requiring General Burn
side to produce the body of the petition
er before this Court, with the cause Of
his captureand detention. Accompany
ing the petition is statement of the
charges of specifications on which he al
| ges he was tried before the Military
Commission. For the purposes Of this
decision it is not necessary to office
these charges specially, butit may be
stated in brief that they imputc to the
petitioner the utterancc of sundry dis
loyal opinions and statements, in pub
lie speech at the town of Mt. Vernon, in
the State Of Ohio, on the 1st Of May
inst, with tho knowledge chat they
did aid and comfort and encourage those
in arms against tho Government, and
could but induce in his hearers dis
trust in their own Government aud
sympathy for those in arms against it,
aud disposition to resist the laws OF
the land" The petitioner does not
state what the Judgment of the Militia.
Try Com mission is, nor is the Court in
formed whether he has been condemned
or acquitted on the charges exhibited
against him.
1t is proper to remark here, that on
the presentation Of the petition the
Court stated to the counsel for Mr.. Val
landigham that, according to the usagcs
Of the Court, as we'll as of other Courts
of high authority, the writ was not gran
table of course, and would only be al
lowed on a sufficient showing that it
ought to issue. The Court is entirely
satisfied Of the correctness Of the course
thus indicated. The subject was fully
examined by the learned Justice
Swayne, when present, the presiding
Judge of this Court, on a petition for a
ha6eds corpus, presented at the last DC.
tober Term; a case to which further re-
ference will be presently made. I shall
now only note the authorities on this
point, which seem to be entirely con-
elusive. Peters, 20l, Cushing, R. 2s5.
Hurd on hdbeas corpus, 222, 3, 4. In
pursuance Of this ruling, an order was
made by the Court that notice be given
to Gen. Burnside, of the tendency in
the Court Of the application for the writ
10 the end that he might appear by
counsel or otherwise to oppose the
granting of tho writ. That distinguish
ed Gen. has accordingly presented a res,
psctful Communication to the Court,
stating generally and argume ntatively
the reasons Of the arrest Of Mr.. Vallan
digham, and has also autho orized able
counsel to represent him. in resistance
of the application for the writ. And
the case has been argued at great length
and with great ability on the motion for
its allowance.
1t is proper to remark fur rther, that
when the petition was presented, the
Court made distinct reference to the
decision of this Court in the case Of
Bethuel Rupert, at October Term, 1899,
before noticed, as an authoritative pre-
csdent for its action on this application
On full reflection I do not see how it is
possible for me, sitting alone in the Cir
cult COurttO ignore tho decision, made
upon full consideration by Justice
Swayns, with the concurreucs Of my.