, 1863-12-26

The case Of Amos " Nanny, vs j. Stein
berger, Commander Of Fort WoUa
Waild.
This is a case wherein Nanny makes aft
davit stating that he is held in unlawful i'm
prsonment by Col. Steinberger, as a militia
ry prisoner; that he is not now, nor never
has been, in the military service of the Uni
ted States and that his life has been, and
is endangered by an attempt to try him by
Court martial, and prays for writ of Ha-
bear Corpus to release him from said illegal
imprisonment.
Col. Steinberger's return to this writ, is,
that 81 detain said Nanny by the authority
Of the President of the United States -
This is all the return the Col. deigns to
make. He does not deny any of the facts
stated in the affidavit of Nanny, nor does
he bring the prisoner, as the law de-
mands, nor in his return offer anything fur
ther than the return above stated.
From this it appears that the facts stated
in the affidavit are taken as true.
Col. Steinberger claims that the Presi-
dent of the United States by Proclamation
of Sept. 18th, 1868, (Which Proclamation
was issued by the President by virtue of
the act of Congress of March Sd, 1869 en-
titles him to hold the prisoner, and only
make the above return. This act of Con
gress provides "that the President of the
United States, whenever in his judgment
the public safety may require it, is autho-
rized to suspend the writ Of Habeas Corpus
in any case in the United States; and fur
ther, that whenever the said privilege is sus-
pended as aforesaid, no military or other Of
ficer shall be compelled to answer to any
writ of Habeas Corpus, &c" "but a certif-
charge of person so detained, that such
person is detained prisoner by authority
of the President of the United States
all further proceedings under the writ
shall be suspended. 1t is claimed
that by virtue of the above, that in all ca
ses, the return of a military officer having
custody of person in the words 81 hold
him by authority of the President of the
United States" is full and complete return
to the writ, and that it puts quietus upon
further inquiry either judicial OR extra-ju-
dicial.
1t is evident that if this is a sufficient re-
turn in all cases, it includes every particu-
lar case which may arise. Should a man
make affidavit that he is a citizen Of the
United States, and in the language of Art
9Th, Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States, that he is entitled to his life
and liberty until they are taken from him
by "due course of laao" or should claim un-
der Sec. 9Th, Amendment to the Constitu-
ton, that he is entitled to a speedy and
public trial by an impartial jury Of the
State and District a0herein the crime was
committed he would be answered by the above
return. In vain he might plead that
the term educ course Of law had certain
and specific meaning settled by every Court
in England and America, since the time ofthe
"Magna Charta" and the udIsputed meaning
of the term is a right to trial by jury of
his peers in a duly constituted civil Court,
and that by the above provisions he is enti-
tied to trial by a civil Court. No matter
under what pretense he was arrested, nor
what the merits of his case might be, no ju-
dicial inquiry can be made, no Court Of civil
jurisdiction can inquire as to whether he is
in military service or a civil citizen. No
civil authority can inquire as to whether the
President had the authority to issue the or
der, or whether he has issued the order in
that particular case, nor in any manner to
question the authority of the military Off
Ger to make the arrest
The officer at his own discretion, makes
the arrest, and then decides upon his own
judgment He is the sole judge and jury
to decide upon the suficiency of the arrest
and the continuance of the Imprisonment,
and if civil court attempts to investigate
the rights of the parties, and decide as to
whether the prisoner is entitled to his lib
erty as a citizen of the United States, the
military commander has only to say, "we
hold this man by authority of the President
of the United States" and the right to lib
erty to trial by civil law, to trial by jury
or to any trial by due course Of law, are for
ever gone When these rights are subject
to be defeated by the above simple few
strokes of pen, who among us is safe
The question here is not whether Nanney
is worthy of punishment; it is a question of
Constitutional law of such importance that
the life of one man is of as little compara-
tive value as that life is to the liberty of the
whole people. The question is whether we
hold our liberty by legal right, or simply at
the will Of the nearest military commander.