Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1864-11-05
The Trial Of Col. North.

/
denied. DEFENDANTS counsel then moved
to try the prisoners separately. The mo
ton was denied, and the Court took .
recess till P. n:
WAsHIH0FoH, Nov. 4.-The trial Of Dol
North, Dawson and Jones, was resumed
this morning before the o. 8. Military Com
mission, of which Gen. Doubleday Is Pres
ident.
Mr.. GiIIett, for the defence, replied, still
pleading to the Jurisdiction Of the Court,
TO the argument Of Judge Advocate Foster.
BE held that the Dorr case In Rhode Island,
and the YallAndigham case, both of which
were referred TO yesterday by Judge Advo-
cate Foster, were by no means similar 70
the present case. There was no resem-
blance between the case Of Vallandighsm
and that Of Col. North, and those charged
with him.
Mr.. Gillett then proceeded to combat
the provisions of the Constitution which
was one Of peace and were necessarily sus-
pended. The extent Of the suspension had
nothing to do with the question before the
Court.
The learned Judge Advocate told the
Court that It was for the Government to
protect the soldier against fraud and in all
their rights, so far as pertaining to his re-
Iations 20 the Government as soldier
The soldier, however, does not vote by vir-
tue Of his relation as . soldier. The right
TO vote Is q relation gpFinging out Of the
local laws Of State. It 10 the right Of q
man as q citizen, not q soldier. The Gov.
eminent may properly have laws prevent
lug the sale of liquors 70 the soldiers, and
preventing any one from inducing them to
sell their clothes and arms. But It has ne
authority in war, or in peace, 70 attempt
supervision or control over civil rights.
.han the RfaNa nj NauF Y0rIr
q Commonwealth passed q Law In relation
to certain rights It does not give the Cen
eral Government control over such rights.
| In this case crime has been committed.
Il is against the civil right Of the soldiers
and against the Law Of New York, and .
remedy iB 70 be found under the laws of
that State. A number Of authorities were
read to show that the United States had no
common law in relation 70 criminal mat
tiers which could be resorted to in this and
similar cases; that the o. s. tribunals had
no power to try causes arising under the
statute laws of the States, and that no
Court had Jurisdiction except as given It
by the power creating Courts. The case
OF Mr.. VallAndigham differed from this.
Mr.. ValIandigham violated . known Law,
which had been published, and the conse-
queuces Of the violation of which were
we'll known to him; but Col. North and
those charged with him knew of no law
which could arrsigu them before q military
tribunal. II there was such q law II was
''ex post fscto," aud consequently uncon-
stitutional and void.
Col. Foster in reply again referred to the
ValIandiRham case and said the United
States Circuit Court of Ohio refused to
grant an application for hGbeaS corpus, for
two reasons. LIST. That they had no pow
er to review the decision of . Military
Court, aud I'd, That the Military Court had
not exceeded its Jurisdiction.
Col. Foster argued that under the Con-
stitution many of its provisions had to yield
to the safety fthe whole of the people
Even In time of peace private property may
be seized for public good, and shall Il be
said that greater power is not conferred in
time Of war II Is apparent that Congress
has unlimited powers in declaring aud car
rying on war, aud the President has power
70 indicate the mode whereby war shall be
carried on.
10 times of war, when the peace powers
of the Constitution conflict with the war
powers, the former must give way to the
latter. The President may, with perfect |
legality, use extraordinary powers, and |
such as may seem to him best in conduct |
ing the war, and he must, in accordance |
with his oath Of Office, do all Ia his power |
to bring the war 20 q successful teFmina- |
ton. In this way the laws Of peace must |
necessarily be made 70 give way and what |
is known as martial law is substituted.
Col. Foster also referred again to the |
Dorr case In Rhode Island, and argued |
from il that the war powers of the PFesi- |
dent are unlimited, and that in time Of &C. |
tual war the President may use extraordi- |
nary measures.
Col. Foster continued by arguing that
the war power was strictly Constitutional,
aud quoted from various authorities In |
support of his argument. II the arguments /
of the counsel for the defence were correct, !
then il Lee or LonEstreet were captured, |
they could not be tried except by regular |
indictment by Grand Jury and trial by q |
In the Mexican war Gen. Scott estab-
lished military tribunals aud statutes Of
the United States 70 prevail there. Gould |
Il be said that this action was illegal aud |
yet It would be impossible to point to q
clause of the Constitution giving Gen. Scott |
such power.
The President In January last, ordered |
Military Commission 20 be convened for /
the trial Of such cases as should be brought |
before IL. This case Of Samuel North and
others was scot 20 this commission by the |
appellate power creating the court, and |
consequently this commission has no an.
thority 70 say they have no jurisdiction in |
this case, forjurisdietion has been given BY |
the Judge Advocate General. II there Is |
an organized band 70 defraud . soldier of
any one Of his rights, has not 8 military |
court the right 70 Try those who sWindle
soldier Of his bounty, or who deprive him |
Of any Of his rights9 Il is always . crime |
TO dsfraud Q soldier aud the Government |
must take the soldiers interest in hand. Fl
The Judge Advocate denied that the |
crime charged was against the statute Of
New York. The statute DOES not provide |
for the Indictment Of any one who CON
mitted the crime outside of the State in
which an Indictment could be obtained, |