Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1864-02-29
nTr, VaIiandIgham's Case in the
Suprem Court.

the higher tribunal to which an appeal lies
from this decision to review and correct
it? There is none.
On the other hand, JoHN SmTH sues
JoHN JoSEs on plain note of hand be-
foru Squire SToPrELMAN, and gets iudg
ment JONES appeals to the Court of
Common Pleas. lie is there ruled out of
court upon point Of law. lie takes
writ Of error to the District Court, fails
there, and then goes to the Supreme Comt
of the State of Ohio, where he finally gets
Justice one way or the other Here JosEs'
has three regularly constituted courts of
law, higher than Squire SToPrELMAN's,.
through which his case has passed before.
its final scttcment-each court having
jurisdiction to afford or deny him the relief
he asks '''.-
Suppose now that the owner of Michi-
gan Joe, after the race was awarded against
him, should attempt TO put in nm appeal
bond before the judges Of the race, and
should file his papers in the Court Of
Common Pleas on the appeal, and ask
Judge PARsoN5 to hear testimony about
the race, and demand that the decision of
the judges upon the track should be re-.
viewed and reversed by him, aud the $500
awarded to him as the real winner. Is
there a man of grain of sense who does
not see at once that the whole proceeding
would be ridiculous, and that Judge PAN
SONS would dismiss the appeal for ,oant Of
jUriSdictioa2 He would say "We know
of no such tribunal as the judges of a
race, and have no power to change otalter
their decision. If the owner of Michigan
Joe has been deirauded of his money, he
can sue before the proper authority TO re-
cover it back but we do not acknowledge
the tribunal at the race-course, rs one
having any control over the persons sub
mitting to its decisions, and cannot, there
fore, review or correct its proceedings. We
decline to interfere"
When Mr. PUGH took Blr. VALLANDIG-
HAMS case to the Supreme Court of the
United States, he presented such case to
that court as (he owner of Michigan j Joe
would present to Judge Parsons in asking
him to over-rule the decision Of his treach.
erous judges. Mfr, PUGH was justified in
his course because the party which had
condemned Mr.. VALLAYDIGHAM had always
claimed that he was properly tried, and
that the tribunal military commission
which condemned him to banishment
was a regular and lawful court, having the
power by law to pass sentence upon him.
Mr., PUGH knew that the Supreme Cont
of the United States, by the trickery of
ABRAHAM LINCOLN, was mainly composed
of judges of the same party. He deter
mined to test the question before these
judges, and therefore applied for a writ Of
certiordri to review the decision of the
military commission which had tried Mr..
YALLANDIGuAM. The result is already
known. The Supreme Court declined to
interfere for want of jurisdiction. That
highest court in the United States decided
that it could take no jurisdiction of Mr..
NALLANDIGHAM' case, because he had been
tried and sentenced by court unkno0n TO
ii, and over which it had no control. .YAL-
LANDIGHAM was answered just as we have
seen the owner of Michigan Joe would be:
"We cannot review the decision of the
shoulder-straps who sentenced you. We
know of no such tribunal Ifyou apply
for a writ of hoJeaS corpus, or if you In
stitutc suit against those who have done
you the wrong, we can hear and determine
according to law, But we cannot reverse
or have any thing to do with tribunal
about which the laws know nothing"
Our readers must bear in mind that Mr.
VALLANDIGHAM's case was simply this ;
The Supreme Court was asked to review
the decision of the military commission
that tried him. There was no appeal or
! writ of error from LEAvITT's Infamous de-
cision, and no suit instituted in which the