The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1863-06-03
eFrom the Washington Ma tional Intelligen-
11saf Cor, Nay 2lst.] -c1
THE CASE OF MIR. VAL
3; s oLANDHGHAM. 5a@

We stated, with precision and particu-
larlity, in our paper of "Wednesday last,
the laws of Congress violated and disre-
garded by Gen. Burnside in the military
arrest, trial and Imprisonment Of Mr..
Valhndighamsf for an otfense made cosnl-
zablc by the Courts of the United States,
Our citation of the statutes relevant to
the case having met the eye of, an eminent
iurist of the n orth sojourning inithls city,
he has addressed us the following note on
the topic. which, though not designedYfor
publication, we communicate to our read
ers. as we'll for the sound conclusions it
enforces as for the new suggestions 1t
makes:
MEssRs EDITORS: have read the
law of the CASE with sadness as well as
interest. The act of 1863 which you cite,
makes General Burnside's action more
openly illegal than had supposed it.
That act of 1863 was, as Its date and his
tory show, passed to counteract.the PfesI-
dents Proclamation Of Sept. "a, 1867,
which subjected all persons "atfording aid
and comfont to the rebels to !" trial by
court martial and military commissions, "
and SUSPENDED the writ of habsas corpus
for all such persons arrested, and thus
nullifed the act of July IL, 1867, before
a case had occurred under it, 9d j.
This stirred the country and Congress,
and the act of March 3, 1863 was the con-
sequence The first section OF this act
ignores the right Of the President, with
out legislation, to suspend the writ of
habcas corpus; and the second section
secures to all persons arrested by the
President S auth ority trial, or discharge
without trial, by the civil Courts. Itdoes
this because, if the Grand Jury find a bill
the prisoner, is necessarily tried on that
by the civil Courts If no bill is found,
| he is then necessarily discharged by the
civil Courts, according to the act. ,5cr
In this state of the law, what does Gen.
Burnside? He arrests, tries and sentences
Mr.. Vallandigham by a court-martial, and
then sends him out of the Jurisdiction OF
the civil Courts which have cognlzance
of his case, and which alone, can render
him the protection of the act OF. 1868. If,
as you suggest. Mr.. Stanton acts, he can
only, under the statute. of 1863, send a
list containing Mr.. sVallandigham's case
to the United States Courts of Ohio, and
on this list they must issue an order to
bring Mr.. Vallandigham before them.
But their order has no power and can not
be served or executed beyond their judi
cial circuit, and Mr.. Vallandigham is at
Fort Warren, and as much out of reach
of their official order as if he was at the
Feejee Islands. No United States Court
but the Ohio Courts have jurisdiction.
The list on which the order is made is be-
tore no other Court, and the statute gives
cognizance of the case to no other.
Then Gen. Burnside sends the prisoner
to prison outside of his own military
district and beyond his military authority.
How can he do this? Why may he not as
we'll, SO far as his own official authority
goes, send him to the Black Hole OF Cal
cutta2
I have no sympathy with Mr.. vallan-
dighan1; but the treatment of his case is
sad foreboding of the execution and main
tenance Of the laws. -.