Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1864-11-04
Trial of Col. North.

Vate, Messfs. B. II. Gillette and ]. D. Nc
PheFsOn appeared % counsel for the Pris-
oners.
The above named prisoners, together
with Reeves and SchO6eld, are charged
with conduct pFeiudicial to good order and
military discipline, and of frauds toward
the New York State electors, in that they
forged the names of soldiers to what pur.
ported to be ballots of said soldiers, 20 be
used at the election 70 be held On Tuesday
next. They are also charged with falsely
and fraudulently issuing divers and sun
dry blanks, which purPOrted TO be signed
by officers aud soldiers in the military ser"
vice of the United States, authorizing the
parties to cast their votes at the ensuing
State and National elections, with intent
to defraud the true elector of his rights.
The counsel for the prisoner pleaded as
to the jurisdiction Of the Court. he ar
gued-6rst, that the Court had no juris-
diCtiOn over the parties; secondly, nor over
the subject of the latter; thirdly, that the
matter was not within the Jurisdiction of
the National Government; fourthly, that il
was q subject over which the National gov.
eminent had never legislated; and fifth,
that there was no law of the Federal Gov
eminent authorizing the Jurisdiction Of q
military court for the trial of any one not
in the military service Of the United
States.
Mr.. Gillett argued that the Federal tri-
bunsls had not in any way or manner an.
thOriZed the trial of persons by Federal
Court for crimes committed at Q point in
the bounds of any State or States. If the
accused had committed crime against
the State of New York it must appear
afirmatiVely that the crime is one against
ekn EkaNa aud aRRaaNuRRtly thu tPihnNato
of the United States had no jurisdiction.
If an offense had been committed it was
only violation of the laws OF New York,
and that same punishment prescribes the
penalties and modes of trial at New York.
If an ofFense was committed in any other
State against law of the State OF New
York, under the extradition Law, the party
charged with the crime is liable to be
taken to New York. II the parties here
charged have not committed Q crime
against the State Of New York Il must
appear afirmAtively that the crime is one
against the statute laws of the United
States, as it has been decided that there
can be no ofense against the United States
unless il is specially made so by statute.
It 10 not aVeTTed that that the prisoners
have committed an offence against the
United States. There are NO common law
offenses in the United States, and it ex-
pressly rules that what are common law
offe nses of England are not lawful OffenseS
against the United States. No Ofense
such as these persons are charged with has
been committed by the statute of the United
States, and consequently this tribunal has
no Jurisdiction. The Court then assumed
Jurisdiction, for no power has been COM
ferred upon il to try cases, and man can
not be arraigned when IL is impossible to
put your finger on law designating the
crime. What would be the effect if this
Court assumed to execute the laws of the |
State of New York; Would an acquittal
or conviction stop the mouth or tongue Of
Justice In New York? Will this or any
York of Vindicating her own laws |
Il matters not what the decision may be |
here, the State Of New York demands the |
offender if there is one and insists on re-
ceiVing him. It is the justice Of New York |
that must OVertake these men if they have |
been guilty. If any other tribunal tries
them, what is the measure of punishment |
for lhem2 In all laws there Is q fixed |
punishment for their violation. But what |
Is to be their punishment here? If there /
is no limit, then there is no boundary be-
yond which the court cannot go. There |
are in these matters grave consequences,
both to the laws of the country and to the |
parties charged. Il is the rule of all courts |
that have not generab jurisdiction, that
before they can carry into effect their hnd- |
ings, they must make mp the records. and |
what law can this court cite giving them /
over this case2
Mr.. Gillette then cited the case of q |
Court Martial during the MEDITERRANEAN war |
by an officer named Hughes, and he WAS |
afterwards mnlcled in heavy damages in |
the district court, because the militay court |
had no jurisdiction over the Offense charg- /
ed. She counsel said he believed in all |
sincerity that this court had no Jurisdiction /
over the case. If the parties charged with !
! crime had been in the service of the |
United States, and had been subject to |
military orders, the court would then have |
had jurisdiction.
Col. Foster, Judge Advocate, in reply |
said that II the last argument Of Mr.. Gill |
lette was true, then a military commission |
could not try spy or Q guerrilla, for they
were not subject to the military orders OF
the United States. The right of trial by /
Jury was right Of which all claimed, but /
q guerrilla could not demand such trial,
nor could o traitor demand to be transfer
red in q court before q trial. In time OF
war certain peace powers were necessarily /
Col. Foster referred to the case of VAL
In all these cases, the state
aud condition Of the county must be con- |
sidered. 1t is charged that the rights Of
the soldiers have been violated. They
are in the field, and not in State where
there are recognised courts Of lay. Mill
tary tribunals are the proper ones to take
note Of the matter.
The District Of Columbis has been con-
sider6d az the field. The parties charged
with crime here are also considered as 10
the field, and consequently assuming the
fact that soldiers In the field had been de-
frauded, aud by parties also in the field,
they were liable 70 ausWeT 70 military
court, az the only one having any proper
jurisdiction. q