Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1864-11-03
THE MILITARY Commission.
rae CASE OF JOHNSON And SUTTON.

Our readers have been informed that the case OF The
United States vs. Johnson Sutton and Homage tried be-
fore the Military Commission sitting in this city.
cuded on Tuesday evening last No other witness than
Worsey whose testimony published three or four days
ago. appeared for the Government Several citizens were
examined to the characters of the defendants The fol-
loving outline Of the points made in argument at the
Of the testimony both by the counsel for the defence
by the Judge Advocate in behalf of the Government
THE ARGUMENT FOR DEFENCE.
Mr. RIDDLE read the deence The accused were CHARGED
with having sold goods to Worey and others to be clan
destney carried into the rebel nes Had sold goods to
rebels through Worsey blockade runner The charges
proven by the unsusaned evidence Of Worsey alone
The Government had included n the charge al the
employees even to the coored porter Of the defendants
and thus closed the mouth Of every body whose testimony
would excupate them. If those parties could testify
Government If guilty would have been put on trial with
them But as they not, and their testimony would
acqut the Defendants they were accused with them No
man could be convicted less than the evidence OF one
unmpeached and uncontradicted witness. Worsey was
less than that 1t utterly improbable No man had
ever acted as did these, If Worsey tells any truth
w actual disloyal deaer-a real blockade runner,
and all through his evidence in chief and part Of his cross
examination, he had When tho decision of the
compelled him to tell the truth he said he was SOY
Government agent, acting by authority Nobody could
believe him after his change OF base He contadcted
by Lieut.. Hunt He was contradicted by Harris. He
C0nLrAdlC0Q CO0tr6QicL00
Fouk saw him at johnson Suttons and knows he pre-.
tended to be loyal and dealing within the Union lines
Worssy said 1t. Stone was with him at j. & S's;
why not Stone called He said his wife was with
him there often why does not the Government sustain
him by her
In this state of the proof the good character Of the
cused must prevail and settle the issue for them Bennett
on Courts Martial, 2S5. De Hart, 345)
The evidence for The Government showed that no crime
could have been committed 1t made no differences what
the defendants thought supposed or intended In the
cOnraband dealer. Again that he
and hence to deal with, through IN, crmnsL But
the proof is that he was in the employ of the Government
in all he did He swears If hs authorized to buy
these goods of these Defendants they necessarily
thorized to sell them to him. II they criminal he must
be- and % he cannot be- they are not The question s
not, did they suppose they committing crime but
was there crime committed (Harris's case, 25 Eng
Com. Law 254. Rex VS.. James, do AZ, o. $780, Loves
case, 2 Moo. and Il. 80 -t 3s
Finally, conviction Of the accused would be CONTRARY
to good morals and public policy. They were innocent
men, engage in an honest pursuit. unsupported of crime
They We're approached by emssary Of the Government
who, to answer some want OF it, seduced them as he
says, into the commission of this crime It was done
wholly through the Government and for thu Government
In morals if there guilt it is the euiltisr party Gov
ernmns extraordinary to detect already
committed Tbey should c0nspire against their own
citizens and induce them to commit offences against them
selves or # they do decency must avoid the scandal Of
attempting to punish for the acts done. H
Brown tried and convicted for inducing soldier to
defet in the Court of the Northern District Of Ohio
Justice Swayne, of the Supreme Court, ordered new
trial. mainly the ground that detective Of the United
States Marshal induced the defendant to commit the Of
fence He discharged his recognis snce and
never brought to trial again.
In the caseof the claimants of goods vs. tha United
States 10 the Circuit Court at Baltimore before Chief
Justice fancy it appeared that Marshal McPhal had in
duced the claimants TO purchase the goods and put them
board vessel and start they supposed for the rebel
country, when he overhaued them in tug and captured
them The Chief Justice said the was most extra
ordinary that he knew Of similar in the United
EOuIa hath
without sustaining the acts Of McPhai which would be
contrary to public policy that upon that part Of the libel
which alleged that the goods were on the to the
mys country it made no difference what the claimants
thought intended the goods actually 10 the custo
dy of Marshal McPha The Chief Justice refused to con-
denim the goods and ordered them their value, to be
restored to the claimants He decided that there was not
even probable cause for seizure and ordered McPha
mformer, to pay the costs. vgst
Mr. Riddle remarked in the of the argument that
he was happy to be informed that the Attorney General
concurred with him in his view Of the law that under the
proof no offence had been committed.
THE ARGUMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
The Judge Advocate then stated substantially that the
present OF the utmost Importance to the Gov
eminent and all loyal citizens That the Commission we're
to decide whether merchants, the leading firms of BA
more and Washington were to cothe and feed the Virgil
MIA guerras they had for the past four years If il
be crime to trade with the enemy furnish them their
rebel uniforms and to aid and encourage them the very
capital OF the Union then indeed had the Government
proved failure, and we mpotency. But if we were
what claimed to be- it proper that the taest heads
should be brought down, the prominent merchants
made examples Of
10 his opinion the evidence of the witness worsey was
abundant TO prove the He had learned that the de-
PENDANTS traded with block aderunners that they were
rebel sympathzes hence he boldly introduced himself to
the hrm showed his credentass pass from the guerrilla
Mosby-and they sell him large quantities Of rebel cloths
They know his intentions, and willingly aid him-congratu
late him on his return from each trip and finally advise him
to hurry back when Mosby has captured paymaster in
order that they may receive the fruits Of the guerra
robberes.
The Judge Advocate showed the outside evidence Of the
knowledge of johnson Sutton of Worsely character
az bockaderunner from the following:
lst The nature Of the Observation-Disclosures grsy-aways
the exact amount for suit cavalry trimmings army gaunt
let's the soft army hats certainly these were not supposed
to be sold to farmers within our lines.
3D. The orders themselves n the possession of the de-
PENDANTS were signed by Mosbys officers Adjuant Black.
we'll Capt Mountjoy, Lieut.. Lavender, Lieut. Buckner
and Mrs Mosby herself all well known to those living
in Washington OF its neighborhood.
3D. The mode Of packing the separae suits in bundles
directed to the different members Of Mosbys band 10 the
defendants handwriting. A1f&
9TH. The double bills made by johnson q Sutton must
have excited their suspicion, for who cond credit that
parties living within sight of Washington would not know
the price OF goods better tina, allow him to charge do
BILE prce1 9tH
9Th. The time elapsing between each visit of WorseIy
was just Sufficient to go the Blue Ridge and back.
9th. His bringing to johnson q Sutton Mrs Chancellor
and Fannie Noand well known Virginia secessonists and
9TH and lastly Their intense dsoyalty testified to by
the defendants own witnesses.
The Judge Advocate commented very severely on the
last witness, Isaac Fouk, who had such a remarkable