Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1864-11-05
Reported Movements OF Hoods
Army.
Destruction of Vessels BY
Pirates.
THE TRIAL OF COL. NORTH
THE TRIAL OF COL. NORTH.

The trial of Col. North, Levi Cohen and
Mr.. Jones, was resumed this morning, be
fore the United States Military Commission
ers, OF which General Doubleday is Presi
dent
Mr. Gillett, for the defense, replied.
still pleading to the jurisdiction Of the
Court 10 the argument of Judge Advo-
cato Foster. He held that the Dorr case
in Rhode Island, and the Vallsndigham
case, both Of which were referred to yes
terday by Judge Advocate Foster, were by
no means similar to the present case.
There was no resemblance between the
case Of Va,lsndigham and that of Colonel
North and those charged with him.
Mr.. Gillett then proceeded to combat
the provision of the Constitution, which
was one of peace, and which was then ne
cessarily suspended.
The extent of the question 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 soldiers against fraud and in
all their rights. 1t was right to pro-
tect the soldier in relation to all his rights,
so far as they spring ont of his relation to
the Government as q soldier. The soldier,
however, does not vote by virtue of his
relation as a soldier-the right to vote is q
relation springing out of local law of a
State
1t is the right of q man, IS q citizen, not
a soldier. The Government may proper
y have laws preventing the sale of liquor
10 soldiers, and preventing any one from
inducing them TO sell their clothes and
arms but it has no authority, in war or
pezce, to attempt supervision or control
over civil rights; therefore, when the State
of New York, as q commonwealth, passed
law in relation to q certain right it does
not give the general Government control
over such right. In this case a crime
has been committed; it is against
the civil right Of the soldiers
and against the law of New York, and
remedy is to be found under the lsWof that
State a number of authorities were read
to show that the United States had nc
common law in relation to criminal matters,
which could be resorted 10 in this and
similar cases-that the United States tri-
bunals bad no power to try causes arising
under the statute leYs of the States, and
that no court had jurisdiction except such
as was given it by the power creating the
court.
Mr.. elliott also quoted an act of Con-
gress of March 3D., 1853, and argued from
it that Congress itself directed what should
Be done with prisoners of State as distin-
guished from Prisoners of War. Howare
the accused prisoners of military charac-
teri They were not in the service. Did
the fact of their arrest and imprisonment
make them subject TO military authorities?
1t is clear that the accused are either State
or Political prisoners. II they are Politi-
cal prisoners then this tribunal has no juris-
diction over them: Besides State and Politi-
cal prisoners there are purely Military pris-
oners, and it is over such only that this Mil
Ssry Commission have jurisdiction.
The case of Mr.. Vallandigham, which
had been referred to, differed from this
case in that Mr. Y. violated known law,
which had been published, and the eonse-
quences of the violation of which were
well known to him. But Colonel North,
and those charged with him, knew of no
law that could arraign them before 2 mill
tary tribunal If there was such law it
was eT post fGetO, and consequently uncon-
stitutiOnal and void.
Col. Foster in reply sgsin referred to the |
Valandigh8m case, and said the United |
States Circuit Court Of Ohio, refused to |
grant an application for 6Gbeas corpus, for |
two reasons. First, that they had nc |
court, and second, that such military |
court had not exceeded its jurisdiction.
Colonsl Foster argued that under the |
Constitution many Of its provisions had to |
yield 70 the safety OF the whole people, |
and even in time of peace private property |
may be seized for the public's good, and |
shall it be said that greater power is not |
conferred in time OF var, 1t is apparent |
that Congress has limited poversin declar
ing and carrying on war, and the President |
has power to indicate the mode whereby |
war shall be carried on. In times of war, |
when the peace powers of the Constitution |
conflict with the war poEers, 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 conducting the |
war. BE must, in accordance with his |
oath of Office, do all in his power 10 bring |
the war to successful termination. In |
this way the laws Of peace must necessar-
ilv be made to give way, and what is |
known as martial law is substituted.
Col. Foster also referred again to the |
Door case, in Rhode Island, and argued |
from it that the war powers of the Presi- |
dent are unlimited, and that in time of ac-
tusl war the President may use extraor-
dinRry measures.
Colonel Foster continued By arguing |
that the war power was strictly cODstitu-
tional, and quoted from various authorities
in support of his argument. If the argu-
ment of counsel foE the defence was cor
rect. then if Lee or LongstFeet v re cap
tured they could not be tried except By |
regular indictment by grand jury and trial
before petit jury. In the Mexican war,
General Scott established military tribu-
nAls, and made statutes of the United
States to prevail there. Could it be said
that this action was illegal2 Ard yet it
would be impossible to point out clause
of the Constitution giving Gener IlIScott
such power. In January last the President
ordered military commission to convene
for the trial Of such cases as are brought
before 1t. This case Of Samuel North and
Others, was sent to this Commission by the
appellate power creating tie court, and con-
sequsntly this Commission has no Suthori-
ty to say they have no jurisdiction in this
case, for jurisdiction has been given by the
Judge Advocate General, If there is an