Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1864-01-29
On motion of A. W. Jones, the thanks Of the
meeting were rendered to its officers.
JOHN B. WILLIAMS, Chm'n.
Fl. T. GRhNaER o0O'' "''O'
For the Standard.

soutey necessary to preserv the blessings Of liberty
Declaration Gt Rights, Sc. 2l)
grave misspprehenson Of the nature and lim
its of the military laU prevails among men of in
telligence and acknowledged patriotism; it may,
therefore, be useful to inquire into the character
and boundaries of this law and the jurisdiction of
its Courts -
Municipal law, which is the. law of the land, is
defined to be "a rule Of civil conduct prescribed
by the supreme power of the State" Military law
is "arule of military conduct prescribed Sy the
supreme authority of the State" and is "that
branch of the laws which respects military disc-
pline and the government of persons employed in
the military service and includes the whole SOL
diery."-(See chap. - -.
1t is thus seen that both the military and the
municipal laws are derived from the same Supreme
power Ia the State, which, in all free countries, is
the national Legislature. With certain limitations
which will presently describe these laws are CO.
ordinate each independent in the sphere of its own
jurisdiction, but cooperative the great ends of
government The municipal law cannot claim iu.
risdiction military offences committed by men
in the military service, military Courts ex-
ercise jurisdiction citizens of the State for Of
fences Of any description. This limited military
jurisdiction has been often decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States, and even by the high
est military Court in the heat of the war of 1912,
in the following case: Elijah Clark, a citizen of
the United States in thebeginning of the war re-
moved to Canada. He afterwards returned as
spy, was apprehended in lines, tried by Court
martial and sentenced to be hung. Maj Gen. Hall,
having doubts referred the case TO President Mad
! ison, and received the following reply from the
Secretary Of War: 81 have the honor to inform
you that Clark, being considered citizen, and not
liable to be tried 6y>G Court MARTIAL the Presi,
dent directs that unless he should be arraigned by
theciUH Courts for treason he must be discharged"
! under the l0lst Art War, e.. L. R., 72.1 So that
; military law is not the will of the commander, or
! the irresponsible judgment of Court martial, but
it is a solemn well dgested written code Of statute
: law, and is contained in the Articles of War;"
ordained by the Confederate Congress- ir February,
1851 Under this code, military Courts are organ
lied and derive all their powers. The slightest ex
animation will convince the doubling, that it con
fers jurisdiction the CITIZEN military courts
arrests, trials and punishments, attach only qpon
/ those in the military service, and possess no man
ner of coghzsnce persons in civil life for any
| offence whatever II, therefore, the military en-
deavor to arrest, imprsOn punish such persons,
without process from the civil Courts and should
| be killed, IL is no murder. When intelligent: men
I and the public press approve and encourage such
illegal and unwarrantable courses, they fall into
dangerous error. 1t is we'll fOrthe citizen to know
his rights, and the military their liabilities Just
| observance of them will then save each from the
ruinous end of pernicious counsels. =.
But, it is objected, that in the crisis of mighty
struggle for national existence, the inexoTable ne
cessiIies of selfpreSerVation demand the nterpos
| ton of arbitrary power, and though unwarranted
by law, it is justified by the greater public good
Taking it as granted that the advocates of military
| power admit that their claims are not sanctioned
! by law, either military CIVIL will now examine
into their last point to wit: That the exercise Of
| arbitrary military power is demanded by necessity
! to save from subiugation. This is the strongest
| possible view in which the claim can be presented
lsut who is to judge of this necessity? The prompt
answer is, the mifitary-those who are to exercise
\ the power. In other words, the military thus be-
come the'nndEers Of the law, and the erecutioners
# the law, for the power to repeal law is a legis
| lative power This union of teyisLatius and erec
UtiUe power has never failed to prove fatal to lib
| erty so much so, that our Constitution as if an
tcipatIng this dangerous claim, declares that "they
shall b. J0rsUer separate and distinct - Declare
tiOn Of Rights Sec. f.
Our ancestors were wise in experience, and fully
imbued with historical teachings. They knew that
necessity has always been the plea Of tyrants and
that they had been compelled to dethrone James H.
and declare the English revolO6on as caused by,
| and an eternal answer to, that fatal doctrine
Hence our Constitution, wisely providing for both
peace and war, declares that Congress shall have
the power to raise and support armies, and Ito
| make rules for the government and regulation of
the land and naval forces"-(Sec. 81 To Con-
gress therefore, has the Constitution confded the
right to prescribe the powers anddutes of the mil
W II
overruling necessity" demands an increase or
diminution Of military power, that is the coRstitu-
tional body to apply the remedy All Legislative
power is vested in Congress- and all the momentous
events of this great contest pass in daily judgment
before it. There is no evidence. that this law
making power is wanting in anxiety, Watchfulness,
and remedial legislation. They SIT for this Uery
thing.
But if the military should assume this law making
power the Legislature is struck out of our system
! and the Constitution destroyed So impressed
were our ancestors with this danger, from both ex-
perience and the history of constitutional liberty,
that the Constitution provides "that the military
shall be kept in strict su6OrdinatiOn to and QOUern
| ed by the civil power" Declaration Of Rights,
section I'D So fully alive; has Congress been, to
the necessity of this sbordination, that the funda-
mental law of the army ITSELF provides that CON-
mandng officers shdl deliver every offender in the
army against the person property of the citizen,
to the magistrate for trial. and If ne fails to do
So he shall be cashiered (Art. 33.) Thus while
the municipal law is general and therefore of uni
versal application the military code is special and
therefore of limited jurisdiction. Hence it is well
settled that if an officer disturbs the person prop
erty of citizen, without warrant of law, be is re-
spopsible in damages, at least More than this, n
ever he abuses his military authority over the
soldiery under his command as by infIcting crue
and unusual punishments, or other illegal practices
though it should be done under the sanction of
court martial, he is responsible in damages before
this general and experimenting jurisdiction of the
courts of common law. The bunblest soldier ir
the service can here arragn commander in chic
and vndicate his rights before that great bdiwarl
of civil liberty, jury of his country.
1T is not my purpose to bring about collision
between the military and civil authorities, but Il
avoid it iRthe only possible way, by clear, de
marcation of the rights and jurisdiction Of each
When that is done, nothing but a want Of sense Of
want of principle will cause collision. Our Con
stitutien divides the powers Of government into Ex
ecutive, Legislative and Judicial; the military il
onI, a part of the Executive. Let each revolve un
disturbed in its own, orbit Let them impart ligh
and warmth and life to each other. But strike on
from its orbit and this whole nolItcal solar system