Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1864-11-04

a win. like every other citizen Suppose some
scoundrel imposes on that soldier and gets him
TO sign will entirely different from what he
really intendsd-euppose he is made to disin-
herit his own Issue and 10 devise his property
to one wholly unworthy.is it not a wrong on
his rights, q violation OF them And can the
Federal Government, in consequences OF
that, punish, under the military power
of the United States, the man who
did it, and who ought TO be punished
Suppose he is induced by chicanery, to marry,
which he would not do under ordinary circum-
stances, is there not wrong inflicted on him,
which might last him through life, might lead
him TO degradation and shame? WIN the Fed
eral Government step in and attempt 70 punish
the man who occssioned 1t Where is the
clause in the Constitution an thorizing l.
Where is the statute of the United States au-
thorizing it'll Who in this broad land has ever
supposed that the Federal Government was in
stituted for the purpose OF attending to the
minutias of affairs OF the citizens OF the diiier-
ent States
Counsel elaborated on these points, and had
read by bis associate, Mr.. Mcpherson, author
tiles IN support of his views. In conclusion
he said:
1t may be that l am too earnest in this.
have not designed TO be too earnest But l can
not help feeling, as a lover OF my country, as
one desiring the success OF our institutions and
the triumph OF our armies, of one who Is ready
to sacrifice his all for the restoration of the
old flag, and to have it wave over the whole
Union,- cannot but feel zeal and earnest
ness III any case where L suppose that the
produce wrong and evil, instead OF good and
effectuai consequences IN favor of the coun try
The Judge Advocate replied.
He said May 1t please the Commission L
have not had time TO reduce what l want 10
say into as little space as should desire, and
as should have done If had had little more
time TO cCndense the remarks which intend to
make in regard to the question of jurisdiction.
As l remembered il, and as 1t was reported in
this mornings paper, supposed IL TO have been
grayely argued before this commission that
there was no jurisdiction in a military tribunal
except that which had been given by positive
statute, or which, by the very words of, If not
the inference from, the Constitution, can be
shown to exist. But If l understood the coun-
sci correctly to- day, he has practically aban-
doned the position OF yesterday, and now holds
that there are great many crimes over which
the court may have jurisdiction Of parties who
are not in the naval or military service of the
United States. But he would have you con-
fine them, we'll as L can understand his ar
gument, to cases in the immediate front OF the
army, when before the enemy.
Before going into the general question Will
simply allude to what he has stated IN regard
to the case of Nallandigham. The Circuit
Court of the United States for the Southern
Circuit of Ohio refused to grant the wit OF ha-
beas corpus which was applied for, for two
reasons. Either would have been sufficient;
either was sufficient. The law was probably
well settled in both. But the Court chose TO
give two reasonable first, that 1t would not
exercise an improper use of its jurisdiction; and,
second, that that was not the proper tribunal
before which to bring the case on a supposed
appeal The Court chose to give both reasons.
And this Commission has no right to say that
one reason is not just as elaborate and Just as
m ach the opinion Of the Court as the other.
Either one was sufficient. The Supreme
Court of the United States practically de-
cided, nay friend has stated, (and which, III
my opinion, affrms the power OF the court
that il had no appellate power in itself-that
the President was the last resort, the last court
of appeals What is this bat saying that the
war power claimed does reside in the Pfesi-
dent OF the United States What Is it but at
firning the whole OF my argument, II the
President Of the United States is the court of
last resort, why is it sol By virtue OF his war
power. BY virtue of his doing as he pleases,
In his sound discretion, in time OF war.
Counsel declines TO discuss the questio II Of
the suspension OF certain articles of the COnstltu
ton as not being relative TO this question, and
yet, from beginning to end he recurs 10 them
as bearing on the case. | shall therefore give
few reasons why, i'll my mind. this court has
jurisdiction, under the Constitution OF the I nj
ted States, and why the jurisdiction claimed by
me Tor this court is strictly in accordance with
the CONSTITUTION, carrying out its provisions;
The Judge Advocate argued ably and elab-
orately the law OF the case. and concluded as
follows:
We do not know, nor is it any of our business,
whether the State OF New York is going
as ume the powers of Congress, and legiSlate
against crimes committed outside of the State.
As yet il has net done But whether ii had
or not and whether if ii attempted 10 legislate
for all Europe, it would have that power, is not
the subject of discussion. The point is this:
we have great army in the field. Our SOL
Giers are now in the presence of the enemy.
The Government has promised to protect those
soldiers in their rights
A man in the District of Columbia, which is
held to be in the field" has attempted to per-
petrate a stupendous fraud upon them; aad,
with unblushing effrontery, we are met IN the
very threshold of the case with the plea that
this is not military offence, but merely an
offence against the State of New York. II il
he not military offence, if il be not an offence
against the soldier as soldier, what is it
And II it be an offence against the soldier, why
is il not military offence
The court was cleared for ueliberatiorl, and
Gu The doors being reopened, il was announced
that the plea against the jurisdiction OF the
C3uTt was oyerruled.
The Judge Advocate then moved that iudg-
ment should be pronounced upon the accused,
ca the ground that the plea against the iuris-
dlcuon was In the nature of a demurrer, and
that the demurrer having beeen overruled, the
prisoners had no right to plead further-the
demurrer being an admission of the charge
MIR. Glllett argued against the motion.
The court was cleared for delberatlon, and
on the doors being reOpened il was announced
that the motion was denied.
The accused were then called upon to plead,
ard they seyerally pleaded 50 not guilty. TO the
charge and specifications.
Mr.. Mcpherson demanded a separate trial
for each OF the accused.
The Judge Advocate objected, and argued
against the assumed right.
The court was cleared for deIlberatIon, and
after the doors were reopened, II was an
nounced that the claim for a separate trial was
not sustained.
MIR. Mcpherson then called upon the Judge
Advocate to specify against which of the pris-
oners he proceeded as principals, and against
which as accessories.
The Judge Advocate resisted the claim. and
the court sustained him IN his position.
And then, to enable The counsel to confer with
their clients ard procure their witnesses, the
court took a recess till p. m.
FROM THE FRONT