The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1864-11-04


military tribunals, and made the statutes Of the
United States to prevail there. Could It be said
that this action was Illegal And yet il would be
impossible to point out the clause Of the Consti-
tuition giving General Scott such power.
The President in January last ordered Com
mission to be convened for the trial Of such cases
% should be brought before II. This case of
Samuel North and others was sent 70 this Com
mission by the oappellate power creating the court,
and consequently the Commission has no autho-
rity to say they have no jurisdiction in the case,
for the jurisdiction has been given to the Com
mission by the Judge Advocate General.
If there is an organized band TO dofraud the
soldier of any one of his rights, has not military
court the right 70 try those who swindle the sol
der Of his bounty, or who deprive him Of any Of
his rights 1t is always crime TO detraud a
soldier, and a Government must take tho soldiers
interest in hand.
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 committed the crime outside Of the
State In which county of the state Of New
York could an indictment be obtained Aud con
soquently a military court is the proper one TO
! take Cognzancc of the case, for the crime
charged was one against the soldier 10 the field,
and consequently was under the direct charge Of
the military authorities.
| The Court was here cleared, and the Commits
sion oveuusd the plea to the jurisdiction, and
decided that they had jurisdiction.
Colonel Foster asked the Court to render a
! judgment of guilty. The defendants could have
| put IN any plea they pleased. They had chosen to
| L. ,rl Il, I,,yf
| consequences.
Mr.. Gillette considered the demand ofthc Judge
! Advocate an extraordinary one, and argued that
| plea to the jurisdiction was not an unusual
! thing
If the defense had dismissed then the Court
could decide whether plea should be entered.
Now will military court decide, that because q
plea to the jurisdiction has not been sustained
that the accused cannot be confronted with the
witnesses, but that he should be condemned
without a trial The Court has simply decided
that the argument against the jurisdiction wa
not good. If the case were disposed Of without
a hearing would it have the effect of putting
down the crime
Colonel Foster, in reply, said the point in th
case Is when person pleads 10 the jurisdiction
pro t0Rto, it acknowledges the facts charged ant
it is purely matter of favor to allow the delens
then to plead to the merits of the case.
The Court denied the motion Of Colonel Foster
vnd the prisoners in turn entered the plea Of no
guilty.
Mr. Mcpherson moved that the accused b.
severed and separate trials be granted them.
The motion was denied.
Mr.. Mcpherson then moved that the Judy
Advocate elect whether he will try the seyera
parties as principals or accessories. They canno
| be both
Colonel Foster said he would not amend hi
specification. He would not consider the plrtie
as principals or accessories, but would try then
upon the charges as set forth in the Specifications
The charges were not drawn up as an ndlc
meut at common law, but as such papers ar
usually drawn in proceedings before militar
courts.
Mr.. Gillette argued that il was the duty of tn
Court to compel his Judge Advocate to elect ho'
he would try the several prrties, whether u
principals or accessories.
The man who is 10 be defended as an accessor
has one line of defense, and the principal hg
another. The evidence in either case must
, different.
. Mr.. McPhCrsou's motion was Denied and Il
Court took recess until o'clock.