The Hancock Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Ohio) 1857-1870, 1863-05-29
.xHs s.vALlAsplsHAn HAssAs
49, 4.C0RPUS CAS- =!


This case is before the Court on
the petition Of Clement l.. Valandig.
ham, citizen of Ohio, alleging that
he was unlawfully arrested at his
home in Dayton, in this State, on TIL,
night of the 9th Of May, inst, by 'aI
rdetacbment OF soldiers of the army
of the United States, acting under the
vorders1of Ambrose L Burnside, al
.MJor-General III the army Of the Uni
ted States, and brought, against his
will, to the city of Cincinnati, whore
he has been subjected to q trial lie.
fore Military Commission, md is
IsDl detained in custody and restrain.
ed of his liberty. The petitioner al.
SO AYERS that be is not In the land or
aayal service OF the Unitcl Stat g.,
and has not been called into active
service in the militia of any State;
and that his arrest, detention aud tri-
al as set forth in his petition, are il.
legal, and IN violation of the Consti.
tution' o. the United States. The
prayer is, that n writ of Habeas Cor.
pus may issue. requiring Gen. Burn.
sidc to produce the body of the peti-
toner before this Court, with the
cause Of h's caption and detention -
Accompanying the petition is state
ment OF the charges or specifications
on which he alleges he was tried be
fore the Military Commission. For
the purposes of this decision it is not
necessary to notice these charges
specially, but il may he stated in brief
that they impute to the petitioner the
utterance of sundry disloyal opinions
and statements, in Il public speech at
the town of Mt Vernon, in the State
of Ohio, on the 1st of May inst.
with the knowledge "that they did
ard and comfort and encourage those
in arms against the Government, and
could but induce in his hearers dis
trust in their own Government an | a
sympathy for those in arms against
it; and disposition toresist the laws
of the land" The petitioner does
not state shat the judgment OF the
Military Commission is, nor is the
Court informed whether he has been
condemned or acquitted on the char
ges exhibited against him
II is proper to remark here, th9t on
the presentation of the pes.t on the
Court stated to the cousel Tor Afr.
Vallandigham that according to the
usages Of the Court, as well as Of otli-
@: Courts of high authority, the writ
was not grantable ofcourse, and would
only be allowed on a sufficient show
ing 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 Ha5eas Corpus, pre-
scented at the last October term; n
case to which further reference will
be presently msde. / shall now only
note tho authorities on this point,
which seem to be entirely conclu-
siyog Refers 20l, Cushing, r. 2S5-
Hurd on HabeaS Corpus, 222, 3, A.
In pursuance of this ruling, an order
was made by the Court that notice
by given to General Burnside, of the
in the Court of the applica-
iioniug the writ, to the end that he
might appear by counsel or otherwise
to oppose the granting Of the writ
That distinguished General has ac-
cordingly presented respectful COM
to the Court, stating gen
orally aud aIgumentatively the rea-
sons of the arrest Of Mr. Vallandig-
ham, and has also authorized able
counsel to represent him in resistance
of tue application for the writ. And
the ease has been argued at great
length, and with great ability or the
motion for its allowance,
tits proper TO remark further, that
when the petition was presented, the
Courtmade distinct reference to the
decision of this Court in the case of
Bethuel Rupert, at October term,
! 1862, before noticed, as an autlorita-
tive precedent for its action Oh this
appIf :ation, On full reflection, ! do
not see how it is possible for me, sit
ting alone in the Circuit Court, to ig-
more the decision, made upon full con
sideratiol by Justice Swayne, with.
the concurrence Of myself, and waich,
Us referabla TO all cases involving the
same, principle, must be regarded as
the law Of this Court until reversed
by q higher Court. The case oil
Rupert ,was Substantially the same IS
that OF the present petitioner He
set OCT in his petition waat he alleged
TO DO. ,unlawfa. arrest by the order
OF a military oilloen Cd a charge i'm
putting to hig acts Of diloyalty to the
Eevefnment, and sympathy with the
rebellion against it, anl an ualawIul
detention aad Imprisonment as the
res llt of such or ,ler.. The .a2plica-
ton, however in the case OF ,R lpert,
differed from the one now before the
Court, in this, that aaldavits were
exhibited intended 10 disp:ove tlc
eaarge OF disloyal conduct imputed to
him, and also in, this, THAT there was
no prstense OF showing by Rupert
that there had been any Investigation
OF trial by any Court Of the charges
against hiWua ce -s
The petition in tais case is address
Ell TO ble Judges OF the Circuit Court,
and not- tora single judge of that
Court 1t occurs from the absence OF
Mr. Justice Swayne that the District
Judge is now holding the Circuit
Court, ss he is authorized to do by
law. : Bat thus sitting, woaldit not