The Burlington weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington [Iowa]) 1860-1876, 1864-02-13

~ John Bakey, OF GranQVleW, Louisa
county, died last week. from the freezing
of his limbs during the very cold wrather.
He got lost, while returning from rel;-
gious meeting, and was out all night.
Important Judicial Opinion.
DECISION OF JUDGE LEAvITr.
The United States VS.. Charles w. Il.
Cathcart.
The United States VS.. Catharine Parmen-
ter.
In the first these cases, "a special Gemur-
rer TO the indictment has been filed; and in
the second there is a motion to quash.
IThe Judge here examines and over
rules the technical exceptions to the in
dictment but as this part of the opinion
Will not be of much interest to the general
reader, it is omitted. The Judge then pro-
ceeds TO examine and decide on the sixth
and seventh exceptions, as follows:
The sixth and seventh causes OF demur-
rer involved also in motion 10 quash. are
yet to be considered. They have been re-
cited as set out in the demurrer, in a pre-
vious part of the opinion, and it is not
sent substantially the same question, and
may, therefore. be discussed together
They affirm, that from the facts aliedged III
the indictment it is impossible that he
crime of treason against the Government
of the United States, can lie committed
In a legal sense the demurrer admits the
truth OF the facts alleged in the indictment
One Of these facts is that the United States
is now engaged in a war for the suppress
sion of a rebellion against the Government
by the people Of certain States, aiming at
the overthrow of tho Constitution and the
establishment of another government. 1t
is insisted that the States in rebellion have
abrogated the compact by which they were
bound to the Union, and this compact
being dissolved, by their ordinances OF Sc
ceSsion, neither citizen of one Of the
States thus seeding, or of any State not
involved in the acts Of secession, can com
NIT the crime of treason against the Coy
eminent Of the United States.
In support OF this position, certainly
somewhat startling in its character, it is
insisted that the Constitution, instead OF
creating an actual and efficient govern
ment for the whole people of the United
States, is mere league or compact, from
which any State, or number of States, may
at any time withdraw, with or without
cause, and without or against the consent
of the people of the other States, rs caprice,
passion or interest may dictate; that the
States, when they entered into the Union
and became parties 10 this league or COM
pact, were sovereign and independent, that
the allegiance of the people of each State
was due exclusively TO the State in which
the citizen had his domicile, and this alleg;-
ance being inalienable and indivisible,
could not be and has not been transferred,
III whole or i'll part to the Government of
the United States, and remains, therefore,
with the people of the individual States,
whose obligations are wholly due to the
State in which they live; that when the
people OF State, in any way they may
Sa<A tn ibxa
such leaSue.or compact, they are thereby alb
solved from all obligation of allegiance or
obedience to the Government of the United
States; and that If they take the attitude Of
armed rebellion against it, with the avow-
ed purpose of its overthrow, they cannot
be punished as rebels or traitors And As
the necessary and logical result of this
theory, 1t Is urged that it a citizen or res
ident of a State which has not seeded, but
which remains faithful and loyal to the
Government. adheres to those in rebellion,
and supports and sustains them in their
criminal attempts, he is not guilty Of
treason and cannot be held accountable
for that crime, under the laws or authority
OF the United States.
These are in substance the points made
by counsel in support OF the two last
grounds OF demurrer. The argument has
been greatly extended, and the domain Of
political metaphysics has been lully ex-
piored IN It's progress. have listened pa
tlently to the statement of the views OF
counsel, though not without some surprise
that they should have been urged with such
apparent gravity and earnestness, before
this Court, on purely legal question, with
the full knowledge that they were in direct
conflict with the solemn and well .cOnsid-
cred ad publications Of the Supreme Court of
the United States, and the views OF numer-
Gus elementary writers of the highest rep
utatlon as Jurists. l am at loss TO COM
prehend on what grounds counsel could
have supposed this Court would sustain a
theory so entirely a: variance, not only
with the decisive authorities to which
shall refer, but with the uniform action Of
every department Of the General Govern
ment from its organization to the present
day. 1t is obvious that the counsel through
out his argument has addressed himself
to the question, what in his Judgment, the
structure of our Government should have
been, and not what it is. 1t seemed, there
fore, to the Court that however appropri-
ate the peculiar views of counsel NAV have
been, ii urged III popular assembly to rec
tify supposed erroneous public senti-
ment. or in a convention to amend the Con-
stitution, or reconstruct the Government,
they were wholly out of place on the Ques-
ton, whether the averments and structure
Of the indictments in this case, were suffi-
Gent in law to put the defendant on trial
before a traverse jury. And I confess to
some hesitancy as to the propriety Of per-
uniting the counsel to occupy so much of
the time of the Court, in illustration of his
theory of our Government or of noticing
the somewhat metaphysical refinements
exhibited in his elaborate argument. The
manner of counsel was, however, unexcep-
tiOnahly courteous, and his views were pre-
scented with seeming earnestness and sim
cerity. 1t is due, therefore, to the occasion
and to the position occupy, that l should
state some of the reasons why cannot as
attention of the Court. And, in the first
place, will refer to some Of the adjudicat-
ed cases in which these principles have been
discussed and settled by men whose intel
lectual power and profound knowledge OF
tho structure Of our Government erltitle
them to the highest measure of respect and
| generation. And may remark here that
in so far az these principles are embodied
and propounded in the judicial decisions Of
the Supreme Court, they are positively au-