The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1864-11-11

administration of the civil code may be sus-
pended for any cause. The law making power
has exercised the authority given to It BY the
Constitution and has established such military
code, and the officers of the army and navy In
tary code are as much restrained by Its spirit
and letter as are the civil officers by the spirit
and letter of the civil law.
Civil courts derive their powers from the
constitution and the statutes of the United
States; military tribunals derive their powers
from the constitution and statutes of the
United States. If civil action be instituted.
or criminal prosecution be commenced in o
court OF the United States, the court must find
in the written law of the land an authority
for It's assuming Jurisdiction. If the suit be
one exclusively within the Jurisdiction of q
State Court, or if the crime charged be crime
against State and not federal law. the court
will refuse to take cognizance of either. be-
cause the Jurisdiction of the court is plainly
defined by the written laws of the United
States
II military tribunal, re-Organized under the
military code, be erected in State, county or
district where the civil courts are in the free
and unobstructed exercise of all thoir legal
functions, such tribunal can have and exercise
no jurisdiction of cases civil or criminal not
arising under the laws concerning the military
or naval forces of the United States. Desertion
to the enemy Is treason. The federal courts
have jurisdiction of treason, and the man may
be prosecuted under the laws of the United
States in such courts; but the military code
gives to the military tribunals Jurisdiction of
the offence, because it Is 3 case arising in the
guilty party is amenable to either code, may
be prosecuted to execution in either tribunal,
and that without violating any laws, because
the law gives to both tribunals jurisdiction of
the charge. The offense is one against both
the civil and the military code, and made so by
positive law. The military as well as the civil
tribunal has jurisdiction of the case, not be-
but simply and exclusively because Jurisdiction
has been conferred upon them by the laws of
the United States. e.t.-.
A remarkable case involving the jurisdiction
of the military and civil courts has recently
arisen, and is now pending at Washington
The Legislature of the State of New York, by
virtue of provision of the Constitution Of
that State made provision for obtaining the
votes of its citizens who may be in the army.
It authorizes soldiers to prepare ballots proper
ly endorsed with their names, residences, &c,
which ballots were to be sent in an envelope
with power of attOrnery to such persons as
they may designate, and the ballots 80 sent
were to be cast on election day in proper pre-.
cncts.. Numerous agents were sent out, and
many others volunteered to visit the army and
seek the euffrages of the soldiers. AS was ma
tural, base men resorted to frauds; the govern
ment through Its detectives made up cases of
fraud d,-that is hired men to forge ballots, pow
ers of attorney, &C., and then when arrested,
to confess the crime and swear 80 as to benefit
the administration party. Some of these par
ties accused of forgery have been placed for
trial before military court, and the question
has arisen whether that court has Jurisdiction.
The law 0uth0rizinO tho oO1diorS nf Noxv
York to vote was passed last winter; 1t pro-
vides penalties for frauds or attempted frauds
under it; and provides for the manner and
form of the trial of the parties. The persons
arrested, If guilty, deserve the severest punish
ment that the laws may permit, but they are
entitled to be tried in the manner and by the
tribunals designated by the law which they
have violated. The crime they have COM
mitted is crime made so by the statute of the
State of New York, and is not crime against
any other law. The guilty parties have forged
the names of certain soldiers of the United
States, not to obtain money or otherwise de-
fraud the United States, but to commit an act
which the law of New York, and no other law,
makes crime. 1t is not an offence against
any known law of the United States, civil or
military; 1t is not . case arising in the land or
naval forces the accused are not ia the mill.
tary or civil service of the United States.
The court has been appealed to that it may
refuse to take Jurisdiction but the agent of the
government insists that it has Jurisdiction, be-
cause the parties whose names are forged be.
long to the service of the United States and
the military tribunals have jurisdiction over
all cases of offences against the persons or
privileges of individuals in the military ser
vice!
We suppose that the appeal from the juris-
dction of the military court will be set aside;
a military tribunal year or two ago refused
fn Vyinfo Yoricn hon fharyh hoAv
risdction over the offence charged, when the
Secretary of War Immediately dissolved the
court and appointed new one, composed of
men who were elected because they would
obey orders to take Jurisdiction. This court
has doubtless been selected to take jurisdiction
and it will obey orders. But the decision of a
court while it is final until revised is neverthe-
less open to criticism, and we venture to sug-
gest that it will be extremely interesting here
after to have military court in session in each
State, to try criminals under State laws with
out Judge orjury.
If Deacon Bross In his paper should publish
libel upon any person in the army, Deacon
Bross cannot claim trial by jury or before
civil court, but must be tried by court mar
tial. 1t is true his offence will be against the
laws of Illinois, which secure him trial by a
civil court and by o Jury, but under the new
doctrine military courts have concurrent iuris-
dietion with the civil courts, not Only for
offences against the United States civil and
military laws but against the laws of each of the
States. man who torges the name of SOL
dier to promissory note, is guilty under the
laws OF this State of high crime, and under
the new doctrine, military court sitting in
any part OF the United States has jurisdiction
OF the offence and without indictment or
trial by jury may convict and sentence him to
be shot, hung or otherwise punished
We think military courts, if they would at
tend to military matters, and let State courts
attend to the prosecution of offenders against
State laws, would hare as much as they could
possibly attend to honestly and legally. II the
VIII ole administration of justice, civil and Grim
inal, not only of the United states, but OF the
tribunals, why does not the government have
a law passed, or at least issue 'proclama
tion." announcing such to be the law? Why
take jurisdiction without warrant of law and
in defiance of all law. when all the government