Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-11-28

Nuilam 10 omltosOu, convicted Dy toe Oen-
era Court Marital OF holding coresposdehce
with the enemy, in violation Of the iftv seventh
article OF var, and Of giving intelligence to the
enemy IN violation OF the same article. bss been
sentenced 70 be conhneti in the PententaFy az
Albany New York. or IN sgch 0therp place as the
Secretary Of War may direct. for the term Of & ve
years. The sentence has been approved by tue
President. and the Secretary Of War has desg
mated Albany. New York. the place Of
fnement. ( ID. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant General"
Our radical contemporaries have been able to
discOyerin this circumstance the evidence OF great
energy In the War Department, and have award
Ell Mr. Stanton such praise must, with those
who can perceive its fitness, 90 far 90 atone for
the absence of energy in the purely military ope-
rations OF the war.
For our part, we can see in this performance
only one more crime committed by Secretary
Stanton and President Lincoln against the Con
rstitution aud the laws which they have sowrn TO
support. The Fat and comfortable Secretary will
jeer at this remin er OF his solemn oath. The
President will tell a story which the allusion re
calls; but time does not halt TO give them secu-
rity, and a day is Fastening when they will not
jeer at their peJuries, and will not be able to
evats the laws which they have broken and
scotfed.
OF Vim. ] Smithson's guilt or innocence we
know nothing He is citizen of Washington,
convicted by the general court martial OF hold
ing correspondence with and giving intelligence
to the enemy, in violation of the ffty-seventh
article of war, which prescrbes death or less
punishment as the penalty of that offense We
will not discuss the question Of bis innocence
but grant at once thai he com nitted the offenses
charged against him We assert, moreover, that
il his guile established in the proper courts
of law, in spite OF his every effort und,r the
forms aud protection of law to rebuff the proof of
his guilt. than five years in the penitenliary l.
too light punishment. He should suffer death.
It was treason and nothing short OF treason He
owed allegiance to The United States; he gave
aid and comfort 20 the enemy, md for that crime
Congress has prescribed the penalty OF deserved
death.
Again, if Mr.. Smithson had belonged to the
army in any capacity high or low aud had been
proved in a general court-martial guilty of the
crime with which he was charged-eiving inteli.
gence To the enemy-then he should not have
been let OFT with few years in the penitentiary
he should have been sentenced 10 and suffered
death. The articles of authorized by Con
gress give courts martial such power, and it is
essential to the successful prosecution of anv war
But Dir. Smithson. innocent or guilty, was -
citizen and not soldier. Not a soldier-he was
not therefore amenable to the fifty -seventh of
the articles OF war, which tor the government
of those who belong to the armies OF the United
ham. the Administration cuts crosswse over all
the forms and securities of law-gving the guilty
the luck of punishment or escape, and roboing
the innocent of their righteous and full defense
Again we repeat, grant that Mr. Smthson is
| guilty Grant that he has committed treason
and is only 20 suffer five years ia the Albany pen
itentary for a crime which his life cannot expate
| the crime of which Secretary Stanton and Pres
ident Lincoln have been guilty is a more fatal
subversion of the letter and spirit OF our supreme
! law. Ii is the crime against Vallandigham gain
| repeated. Thenit was against man innocent OF
| treason or any crime known TO our laws. Now
| it Is against man perhaps guilty OF the highest
crime known to our laws. Bot il is the same
| crime--unpardonable in rulers Ii is the sapping
of the foundations of public safety. by those most
trusted to preserve and defend them Ii is
treachery IN the head OF the State.
Is any reader so little acquainted with the his
tory aud laws of his country as TO regard this as
strained language-as too severe comment upon
! the action of the executive officers, engaged ia
carrying Oh WARP Well re want the war TO
| succeed much as Mr.. lincoln wants il To; but
don't want the punishment of rebels for vio-
latng the Constitution to be his or any one else :
excuse for doing the same thing in ways less
assaiiabe because more insidious, less punish
able because less OPEN but not less wicked, not
! less fatal 10 all those civil aud personal rights
which the Constitution guarantees.
But our language is not strained, our view of
| this matter is Motive beg TO assure oGr sensitive
radical friends who have such keen noses for dis
! loyalty-in the least disloyal Our view of the
MATES is the same which CONGRESS once decided
| To take. Our language Is tame compared 10 that
! i'm which Daniel Webster (who If sid to have
known what was constitutional and loyal once
| persuaded Congress TO the same conclusions.
The debate occurred in 1914. when Mr.. Web
ster was representing New Hampshire in the
4 IN a ha nrad
attempt To change the forum tor the trial OF
treason from civil TO military tribunals. Said
! he:
What is the nature of these cases for which
! il is deemed necessary to provide military pun
shment? Are they not cases of treason? 1t is
said Information has been communicated tn the
enemy, very material to him, respecting the ope
ratious of our own forces. by citizens of the
! United States. Do gentlemen suppose that this
act is not Ieason? Is not this giving
to the enemy aid and comfort? May il not be IN
many the most important service winch can
be rendered him! Certainty, sir. all such oienses
MS gentlemen have mentioned are provided iOl
| by law, and adequate penalties annexed to the
! commission The simple question before Us IL
whether we will consider the proprety OF taking
the power Of trying for these offences from the
courts of law. where the Constitution has placed
il, and coulter il ON tho military. Sir. the propo-
sition strikes me "a monstrous.'
President Lincoln and Secretary Stanton have
not paused To consider OF the taking 5iway OF the
trial Tor treason from civil to military tribunals
They have simply tiken itaway without con
sidering or paushg Ii MI Webster could call
this dallying with the supreme law INDUSTRIOUS,
What shall We call its open subyersionr
Il cannot consent TO entertain the considera
ton Of II even for moment. II goes TO destroy
the plaine-t constitutional provisions. 1t il
should prevail. should not hesitate to pronounce
il most enormous stride Of usurpttiou
Ii has prevailed by the dicum of the excvtivs
no; ven preceded by such al act OF Congress
a. Mr. Webster thus denounced Then IS Mr.
Lincoln guilty not Guilty. or not guilty. OF
most enormous stride Of usurpationr
II any civil judge OF competent authority
should not issue writ of hsbeas corpus and cal
Wm t Smthson out of the Albany pententary
AMI into his presence for the purpose OF an inquiry
into the of his commitment. " c Al i'm glue
1 the thunders of impotence and the profant,
which would issue from Mr. Sautons private
office. ard foresee the Walls of wrath with
which the radical press would asperse such
judge, and Gov Seymour, if he should back the
lawful judicial authority with all neeifuI force
We are able also 10 know how Daniel Webster
would have regarded such a proceeding for thi.
4 Is his language:
The gentleman from Georgia Nj Troup)
observed that when persons had been anprehended