Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1863-07-01

1
produce the prisoner with the cause of his |
capture aud detention. The removal OF the
prisoner under such circumstances has the |
appearance of an attempt on the part OF
those who detained him in custody to
eYade the jurisdiction off the court, though |
such may not have been in factthe intention |
of the parties. Such removal woul not |
deprive the court of its jurisdiction. When
once the jurisdiction of court attaches to |
any subject of controversy it cannot be de- |
prived of its jurisdiction by an effort of auy |
character so long as the subject OF contro-
yersy is under the process or within the
power of the court. If therefore the arrest
and detention Of the prisoner in the first
instance was under or by color of authori- |
ty of the United States, it is sufficient to |
give this court jurisdiction, and any subse-
ouent attempt or effort upon the part OF
those hayiRg him in custody to evade
the jurisdiction of this court by shifting J
him from prison of the United States to
State prison lis device that this court
cannot lend its sanction to, especially In
case where the liberty of the citizen is
| involved. But it is commended that he
! is held as hostage by the Governor
The facts in this caseshow that he was
under the exclusive control of the
War Department at the time of his arrest
and being so held no other power could
| interfere to deprive the Secretary of War
of his custody. AS late as May the
4th, 1868, the Secretary of War issu-
| ed his order to the Provost Marshal
long since his present arrest, requiring him
in the following language: "To discharge
Judge Thompson, provided he be not guilty
of reasonable and disloyal actings since
his exchange" 1t is evident from this or
der that the Secretary of War regarded
the prisoner as under his control. he
makes preemptory order for his discharge
whilst be was in custody in a military
prison of the United States, unless he was
"guilty of disloyal actings since his ex-
change" No such charges are proven or
even preferred. 1t would seem from this
order of May the 4th that the War Depart
ment does not hold the prisoner as hos
tage or for anything else, and no other pow
son has the right to hold him as SUCH
The act of Congress passed at its last
session makes it the imperative duty of
this Court to discharge all prisoners not
| held for some offeuse other than prisoners
of war. The War Department recog-
uizes the validity of the act as well as
the power of the Court to enforce its
provisions. 1t has furnished this Court
with list of prisoners SO detained in
pursuance of the law. That list contains
the names of some seven or eight hostages
seized by Governor Peirpoint. The Sec
rotary of War evidently recognizes these
hostages as under his control, although
| seized by the Governor He reports them
to the Court as such. The Governor can
not and does not claim more in this case.
he may Indicate whom he desires to be
seized, but it must be done under the power
of the War Department, aud subject to its
confirmation. II is well settled princi-
Pile, that under the Constitution of the
United States which is the supreme, law of
the land, that Congress can alone declare
war, and make all needful and necessary
rules and regulations for the purpose of
conducting the same. The Constitution
expressly reserves the right to Congress-
No State possesses the constitutional power
TO make war, treaties of peace or
rules and regulations concerning a
war. 1t is an attribute of Federal
sovereignty alone. 1t is true that a State
possesses the inherent right of
of self. defence. But no State relies, under
our Constitution, upon herr own natural
and inherent rights for defence. By the
Constitution she is entitled to the Federal
protection. Without that protection this
Court would not be in session to-day, nor
would the civil officers of the State be able
to administer the government OF the State,
Every act, therefore, done towards sup
pressing the present rebellion, although il
, may be done by State officer, is in pur-
suance of the Consultation of the United
States aud the laws enacted by Congress
relating t. the subject. The Government
of the United States regulates the exchange
of prisoners, as we'll as the seizure of host
ages. Any State law passed upon this
SUBJECTS only cumulative remedy in aid
of the General Government, and would not
deprive the prisoner of the benefit of the
/, | nil nf
laid down by the law of nation 8
relating to this subject. This prisoner is
citizen of the United States and owes his
paramount allegiance to that government.
He is also citizen of West Virginia. But
West Virginia is an integral part of great
nation, having as a State no independent
status among the nations of the earth, aud
has, therefore, no right as a portion of thu
Federal Government, to make rules regu-
/ lating war in which the Federal Govern.
ment is involved. Il am, therefore, of the
opinion that all prisoners aud hostages
3 taken in this war, are in point of civil as
| well as military law, subject to the FEEDER
, al authorities, and when deprived of their
liberty for any purpose, it is by color of
, the authority of the United States. And,
in this case, the military authorities of the
/ United States not claiming the further de-
tention of the prisoner, he is entitled to a
, discharge. But, in disposing of this case,
The Court cannot close its eyes to the con-
dition of the country and the Circum-
stances by which we are surrounded.
1t cannot ignore the fact that the loyal por-
ton of the country are engaged at this time
in most patriotic effort to suppress a
most wicked rebellion, which is attempt
ing to destroy the Government of the Uni
ted States. And whilst the citizen has
. right to appeal to the courts of his country
for protection, he has aireciprocaI duty to
perform. And if he fails to discharge that
J duty, the Government hasa right to demand
: in return for the protection he receives
at its hands, his most earnest support
/ ~,