Washington telegraph., 1863-06-03

gality 81 the imprisonment, and II the person
is held without authority Of law, discharge
him from custody.
Nor is there anything in orr Habeas Corpus
Act which initiates against this conclusion
Sec. Z, Art. III, chap. 81, Gould's Dig p 354,
declares that, No person shall be discharged
under the provisions Of this Act who Is In Gus
tody, or held by virtue Of any legal engage
ment, or enlistment in the army or navy oi
the Confederate States; or who being subject
70 the rules and articles Of war, is confined By
any one legally acting under the authority
thereof" &c.
But this by no means prevents the State
Judge or court from inquring. on habeqs cor
pus, whether the engagement on enlistment
y legal" or whether the person il really sub
Ject to the rules and articles OF war, or con-
hned BY some one legally acting under autho-
rity, &C.
Tn the agreed state Of facts before the
County Judge, it was only shown that Herbert
vas between the ages Of Is and Az, anil that
10 was the owner of o plantation with ten
slaves, upon which there was no white male
adult liable to military duty. Ii was not
shown whether he was over or under 90 years
OF age. Upon this point the court decides the
release Of the prisoner by the County Judge
erroneous, summing up as folloWs:1
by an Act Of 9th Sept, 1862. amending
out not repeating, t4e CoHsc-iPtiOn Act Of
10th Of April, S.. thr President Of the Con-
Iederate states WAS authorized t1 call out and
place ~ military service AMID white meu between
ihe ages IF S5 ani Az years. AZ the time Of
making ihe call, An whD were not a. such
time legally exempted from military service,
Jr such part thereof wv III lIs Judgment might
De necessary do th- putllc defence. Also all
persons who we're. tle date MI the Act on
might thereafter become Id years of age. with
4 Pr0r,so. that if ihe President should first call
fJr part z: the persons betaeen the ages
! above indicated, he should call for those De-
tween the ages VI u anu any other aye less
than forty i've.
by the Exc nruOn Act Of llth October.
/ lSil. passed. but few days after tla approval
nj the Con=cript Act just referred %. classes
az persons we've exempted from c1nscrip;ion
who were not exempted from military service
by tie Exemption Act of alst April. 1852. a.
Tor example the owners VT slaves under cir-
cumstances to be particularly noticed here
after. IL the Exemption Act nj 18th October,
1862, We're construed to have Retrospective
operation, the effect would he to make il dis
charge from the army. Or strike from tie
under the Consumption Act Of 10th April.
1862, or to release from liability to conscrip-
ton persons who we're subject to CONSUMPTION
under that Act and avoided enrolment. But
SUCH, We think, above stated, was not the
intention Of the Exemption Act OF lIth Uc-
toDer, 1862.
To entitle Herbert to discharge. he should
have shown that hc was enrolled uuler rbe
provisions Of the Consumption Act or the 2 Nth
nj september, 1862. and was entitled 10 er-
emptioa under the Exemption Act of lItb o.
tooer, 1862; or tina. be vas enrolled under the
Consumption Act OF l6ta April, Is ,. and was
eugItled to exemption under ths Exenptien
Act OF list April, 1852. But he has failed NJ
show the one or the other.
The remaining portion Of the decision we
give in full, ~ it il of great practical iuport-
auce to the people aud those whose business II
i to maintain due process wy Bw.1
The Exemption Act Wy IIth Os-5a.r. 1852.
contains among others tUs following clause.
.'To secure tAe proper police -tsA5 e.44try,
one person, Ll-Ie- a-- q uFIlE Ur Uvgrseer.
on each plantation. WHICH ole white nars ~
j. required to 0r kep- p. tie Avs Oh ordiaan.es
OF am State, AMI wa!cl there Is ~ white
male adult not HaDlc T. io military service.
ami III States having ny slcu laR, Gue person
Wy agent owner VI 5ver5eer. WI each pllut.-
ton wv twenty negroes. and ON which there IN
no white taair Hi4it u1t liable to military aa--
vice: and furthermore flr M Lition4i police
for every twenty negroes N two on more plan
tatinns. within Eve miles W eacl other auI
each having les than twenty ue-r0es Eul vi
which there l. ne white male adult n0t liable
~ military duty. one person being tine oldest
90 the owners or cyrrseers on such plantation"
There b. . statute passed by the General
Assembly of this state; NY. 18th, 1861. which
requires white person T. bs kept "a y pan
tatIon where there are slaves. which ~ has
been conceded. III the argument made here
Try enrolling officer, d. vmJrI1ei by lha lam
ruarr oil the Exemption Act above copied, and
hi watch there can be no wish f1uldei doubt
The Act j. a- follows
..ia 4cf 20 compel the resiG.aes 4f s17se sgii,.
peTtoa on plantations on rhisi tisrs arc st1rss.-
SEC. |. b u eaacIed, se., That Amy " srs1n 5c-
cupvinr A plantation with slaves, b3 bound 10
have thereon u white person tp oversee and
maintain good order among them; provided he
or she does not remain on said plantation lin
person; and. on failure 70 ~ 50, on conviction
| thereof he or she shOnld be fined not less than
6ftv. nor more than one hundred dollars. for
each month said plantation should De without
such white person., &c.
police Of slaves. and was not designed to create
anv exemption from military service Tie Oh
iect Of the legislature was 70 require y person
occupying a plantation with slaves. where he
or Sic could not. or did not, choose 10 remain
with them in person upon tie place. 20 have
some white person there to supervise and
police them-to keep them from depredatine
upon ntighboring places eontriving michief
or affording place Of resort for other slaves
who might be disposed to seek opportunities IL
congreglting at important laces Tor the pur-
pose Of contriving mischief.
AS already remarked, it was not the inten-
ton of the Act to create an exemption from
military duty, the law having no reference 10
that subject. If, for example, after the pas
sage Of the Act, the proprietor Of a plantation
en- which there were slaves. otherwise subject
to military lu., had been called u service by
State authority, he could not legally have ex-
cused himself from such service by showing
that he was the only white person on his plan
taton.
He would have been in the attitude OF owing
two duties to the laws Of his S;ate-the one to
have some white person on his plantation TO
supervise his slaves, the other to render mill
tary service. But the first duty he could have
discharged by the substitution Of some other
white person, and the second duty he could
have cischarged in person.
Much has been said in the argument in re-
gard to the number Of slaves which must be
upon the plantation in order TO require the
presence Of a white person under the provi-