Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-05-19
Opinion of the Judge in Full.

AT ten o'clock Saturday morning the Circui,
Gouft room was crowded to hear the decision O
Judge Leavitt on the application Of G. L Val
landighsm for writ of habsas cO,pns m,
following is the decision of the Court: "
Erparte @. L. Vallandigtam-Hab,as Co,pus
This Gaze Ia before the Court on tho petition
or Clement L. Vallandgbam, citizen Of Ohio
alleging that he was unla wfully arrested at bil
nome IN Dayton, IN this State, on the night o
the 9th of May Instant, by detachment of sol
ders of the army of the United States, actjno
under the orders of Ambrose E. Burnside, z
Major. General in the army of The United States
and brought, against his will, TO the citv n
Cincinnati, where he has been subjected To 4
trial before Military Commission, and ia stjl
detained in custody, and restrained of bis lin
erty. The petitioner also AYERS that he ia moi
In tho land or naval service of the United
States, and has not been called into active sar-
vice In the militia of any State; and that bia
arrest, detention and trial, as set forth in his
petition, are illegal, and In violation of tho Com,
ltitutiou OF the United States, The praver Ia
that writ Of habeas corpus may ssne, renuir-
Ing General Burnside to produce the body oi
the petitioner before this Court, with the ostlae
OF hia caption and detention Accompanyinu
the petition Is statement of the charges or
specifications on which he alleges he was tried
before the Military Commission. For the pur-
poses OF this decision 1t Is not necessary TO nu-
nee theae charges specially, bus IL NAV be
STATED In brief that they impute to the petitioner
the utterance OF sundry disloyal opinions and
statements In q public speech at the town OF
Mt. Vernon, in the State Of Ohio, ON tho Ist nj
May, Inst, with the knowledge "that thew did
aid and comfort and encourage those in arms
agains, the Cove nment, and could but indnca
10 bis hearers dlstrust in their own Govern
ment and sympathy for those in arms agains,
IL, and disposition to resist Tho laws of the
land" The petitioner does not state what tho
Judgment OF the Military Commission Ia, nor
10 the Court informed whether he has been con-
demned or acquitted on the charges exhibited
| against him.
IL is proper to remark here, that on the pre.
| sentati0n OF the petition, the Court atated In
the counsel for Mr.. Vallandigham that accord.
ing to the usagea of the Court, az well as Of
! ether courts of high authority, the writ was NOT
gTantlble OF course, and would ouly be allowed
on sufficient showing that il ough, TO iseuo,
The Court is entirely Satisfied of tbe 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 habeas corpus, presented at
the last October term ; case to which further
reference will be presently made. | shall now
only note the authorities on this point, which
seem 10 be entirely conclusive. Peters 2Ol.
Gushing, X. 265 Hurd on habeas corpus, 222,
3,4, In pursuance Of this ruling, an order was
made oy the Conrt that notice be given to Gen
eral Burnside, OF the pendency In the Court of
the application for the writ, 60 the end that he
might appear Dy counsel, or otherwise, to op
| UObD tn6 GRANTING nI iha -
guished General has accordingly presented n
respectful communication TO the Court. stating
generally and argumentatively the reasons OF
the arrest OF Mr. Vallandigham, and has also
authorized able counsel TO represent him In re-
distance oil tho application for the writ. And
the case has been argued at great length, aud
with great ability on the mption for its ALLOW
ance.
IL 10 proper to romark, further, that when the
petition vas presented, the G -uIt made a dia
hnct reference to the decision of this Court in
the case OF Bethuel Rupert, at October term,
1867, before noticed, as an authoritative precc-
dent for iss action on this application. On full
| renectloDi do not see how 1t is possible for
me, sitting alone in the Circnit Coult. to ignore
the decision, made upon full consideI alton be
Justice Swayne, with the concurrence of m mygelf
and which, as referable to all cases involving
the same principle, muat be regarded as the law
OF ,hia Court unit reverted by higher Court,
The Saue oil Rupert was substantially the same
40 that OF the present petitioner. Hs act out
in his petition what he alleged to be an unlav.
I'll arrest by the ofder OF q military officer, on
a charge impnIing 60 him acts of disloyaIty 70
the G1Vefnment and sympathy with the rebel.
non against II, and an unlawful detention aud
Imprisonment as the result OF such order. The
"A n srA ~ .urn n -
fered from the one now before the Court, ia
this, that sflidsvits were exhibited intendaa ID
disprove the charge OF disloyal conduct imputed
to him aud also In this, that there was no pre
tense or showing by Rupert that there had been
any Investigation or trial by auy Court OF the
charges against him.
The petition In this case ia addressed 10 the
Judges OF the Circuit Court, and not to a angle
Judge OF that Court. 1t occurs from the sb
sence OF Mr.. Justice Swayne that the District
Judge 10 now holding the Circuit Court, as he
10 authorized To do by Law. But thus sitting,
would it not be 10 violation of all settled ruies
OF Judicial practice, as we'll as OF courtesy, for
the District Judge TO reverse q declsion of the
Circuit Couit, made when both Judges were on
the Beneh2 lt Is well known that the Disttics
Judge, though authorized TO cit with the Circuit
Judge in the Circuit Court, does not occupy the
same Official position, and that the latter Judge
when present, Ia, ez o6fciO, the presiding Judge.
IL Ia obvious thas Confusion and uuCertaibtv
greatly impairlng the respect due to the adiedl.
Cations OF the Circuit Courts of the United
States, would result iom the assumption of
aucl an exercise OF poWer by the Disirics
Judge. ~ would not only be disreapecsful TO
the superior Judge, but would evince in the
DISTRICT Judge an uts'v want of appreciation OF