Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1863-08-19

|
free from oppression as in the State of
Ohio. But the Democratic party has
sounded the alarm hat our liberties are
jeopardized in that Mr.. Vallandigham has
as they assert, been illegally convicted and
banished. I now propose to consider that
question before slluding to matters gilmore
general interest.
| A CONVICTED TRAITOR.
The candidate of the Democratic party
was convicted by a military tribunal for
aiding the enemy with whom we are at
war; for this he was expelled beyond our
lines, and was within the lines of the en-
envy when nominated for Governor of Ohio.
By the judgment of a military tribunal,
composed mainly of his political friends,
approved by General Burnside, the chief
officer within the State, sanctioned by
Judge Leavitt-a Judge selected by Val
| landigham himself-of the United States
| Court, he was convicted and sentenced to
Imprisonment during the war, by the
mercy Of the President he was released
| from imprisonment and sent beyond oar
| lines While thus banished as a convicted
traitor by military authority, the Demo.
cratic party of the State Of Ohio nominated
| this man as candidate for Governor and
you are called upon to ratify and confirm
| that nomination-to entrust this man, con-
victed as a traitor, with the chiefcommand
of our militia, the appointment of all its
officers, and the management of the execu-
tive authority Of the State, and that too,
in the midst of war with the rebels he
was convicted of aiding Now, fellow-citi-
zens, this is startling proposition. 1
am surprised that party could be found
] in Ohio to make such a nomination. Yet
they had the right to make il. 1t is for the
people of Ohio to say what shall be done
| with it. 1t will require some forbearance
for the brave soldiers who are now expos
| ing their lives to the bullets Of the enemy,
to discuss this nomination, and / admit
that it tries the patience of patriotic oiti-
ziens to discuss it with good temper. Yet
the men who made the nomination had the
right to make it. They had the right to
nominate JEFF Davis, Breckinridge, or any
other rebel or they might have initiated
a practice become common in Europe, and
selected Greek or other Prince. Laugh
er The Constitution of the State does
not limit even to a citizen of the State the
right to hold the Office of Governor. Let,
us, then, exercise our right to examine and
discuss the reasons for this extraordinary
nomination. And here, before proceeding,
1 will state that if there is any candid man
here VINO desires to ask any question
touching this matter, ehsll be most hap
py to listen to him and to answer his ques-
ton to the best Of my ability.
THE LAW IN THE CASE.
It is said that Mr.. Vsllandigham has
been illegally convicted, and therefore we
must make him Governor. The familiar
provisions of the Constitution of the uni
ted States protecting the personal liberty
of the citizen by trial by jury are quoted.
With the same application no rebel soldier
could be shot without trial by jury; no de-
serter could be arrested without hearing
before judge; no spy could be hung ex-
cept upon conviction by petit jury. War
has its laws as well as peace. They are
entirely consistent with, yet Independent
of each other. Each has its offices, its tri-
bunals, and it's forms of trial. The civil
laws prescribes civil Offenses and the mode
of punishment, but these laws do not sp-
ply to military offences committed in the
time of war, nor is it possible to define the
latter class Of offences with the precision
of civil laws and tribunals The general
rule may be stated, that any obstruction to
the militsry force in time Of war, within
the lines of military operations, is an Of
fense to be overcome and punished by mil
itary force or military tribunals, as accord
ing to the usages of modern warfare. In
the execution of this rule in time of
war, military authority and military tri-
bunals are not substituted in the place of
civil laws and courts.
Ffris- Is the laB---hio oil gUUu CIUIEouS
and courts are bound to recognize during
war. Now, that I may not state a wrong
legal proposition, will venture to read to
YOU from q law book-from Halleck's In
ternationsl law.
"When a military force is called out to
rebel invasion or suppress rebellion, It is
not placed under the direction of the judi
ciary, but under that of the Executive
Suppose the military force, legally and
eonstitutionally called into service for the
purposes indicated, should find it neces-
| ssry, in the course Of its military oyer
ations, TO occupy field or garden, or de-
stroy trees. or houses belonging to some
private person, can court, by injunction.
restrain them from committing such waslp2
It can do so in time of peace and if It's
powers are to continue in time of war, the
| judiciary and not the Executive will com
msnd the army and navy. The taking or
destroying of private property in such
cases is military act, an act of war, and
must be governed by the laws of peace. In
the same way, person taken and held by
the military forces whether before, or in,
or after battle, or without any hattie at
all, is virtually prisoner of10ar. No mat
ter what his alleged offence, whether he is
a rebel, traitor, a spy or any enemy in
arms, he is to be held and punished &C
osrding to the lIUs Of VaT, for these have
been subs ituted for the laws of peace"
Now, my friends, have thus read you
the law from law book which is reoog-
nized as authority in all the courts It
states distinctly, that if person is arrest
ed, whether he be rebel, a traitor, spy
or an enemy in arms, he is to be held and
punished by the laws Of war and by the
tribunals of war. It may be that in the
execution of this rule the executive ormil-
itary branch Of the Government has, in
some cases, exercised its authority where