Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1864-11-04
4 O'CLOCK P. N.
GOVERNMENT SECURITIES.
- - 10 furnssh tho faltaxr;,r N m
THE ELECTION FRAUDS.
Il II 4 ELEVHIUN FKAJ DS.
Trial of Col. Samuel North and others Re.
Sumed,

THE ELECTION FRAUDS.
Trial of Col. Samuel North and others Re.
sumed.
The Military Commission, OF which Major
General Doubleday, U. 5. V, is president met
this morning at their rooms, on F street, be-
tween 18th and 14th sts., at 10 o'clock. Prssi-
dent. Maj. Gen. Abner Doubleday, U. s. y;
Brig. Gen. Francis Fessenden, u. S. "; Col. Il.
Butler Price. I'd Pa. cav; Lieut.. Col. T. A.
Barker, 18th N. H.; Capt. NJ. H. Ellis 175th \
Y v; Capt ] Ii. Piatt, A ID. O.; Col. J. A.
Foster, 18th N. v, Judge Advocate
Messrs. Jas. o. Clephane and H. q. Hayes,
Off cal reporters were present.
The case of Col. Samuel North, Levi Cohen,
N. M Jones, - Reeves, and - Schofeld,
charged with fraud upon the New York rl
soldiers vote, was resumed Messrs. r. II. Gill
let and John ID. Mcpherson appeared as
counsel for the defendants.
On the opening of the Court
Mr.. Gillet, counsel for the accused, said On
yesterday 1t was suggested by the Judge Adyo-
cate that there was something in what is known
by the bar as the Dorr case which had a bear
ing in this case. My familiarity with that case,
from the day of its argument and its decision
to the present time, enables me to say that 1t
has 70 applicability, and that there is nothing
in it having any bearing whatever on any OF
the matters legitimately be fore this tribunal.
That was case OF an entirely different charac
ter in every respect. That grew out OF a con
troversy in the State of Rhode Island in rela-
ton to a Constitution, and under which Con-
sttution the people OF Rhode Island lived.
The Supreme Court decided, and with very
great propriety, that it was not its province TO
determine the politlcal questions arising in
that State as to which was the State govern
ment. If that case had presented, as a matter
OF fact, the issues between the two constitu-
tiOns-which was the one under which the
people of that State liyed-it would have been
question OF fact to be tried by jury, and
could not be determined as question of law
by the court. And therefore the court would
not determine that question as a question of
law, but would take the political action of the
Federal Government as indicating which was
the true government Hence the decision was
in accordance with the action of President Ty-
Ter, that the old government was the true gov
eminent. As to anything in relation to the
question of the suspension of the Constitution
of the United States, or anything of that kind,
it is not in the case.
The second case cited by the Judge Advocate
was that of Fallandigham. Hew that can have
any bearing on this case is incomprehensible TO
me In the State of Ohio, the MAJOR General in
command had issued military order forbid
ding certain things to be done in that State, and
among them the commission OF acts that should
weaken the military power, and tend to dimin-
ish the ability of the Government to WELD, to
combine. and to use that power in crushing the
rebellion. That order. according to the under
standing of the officer issuing it, was, for the
time being, and for the place, a law of the land.
That order was violated, as it was held by
Mr.. NalIandigham. He was said to have, in
his discussions, used language and enforced
thoughts tending TO prevent the easy and
appropriate combination OF the military
II
against the enemies. That was charged against
him. He was brought before tribunal, tried,
convicted and sentenced The propriety of all
these things has nothing to do with the present
case. His friends Were not satisfied with the
decision, and made an application for GER
tiorari.
The Judge Advocate.-F'or writ OF habeas
corpus.
Mr.. 6 illet.-That was first. On such appli-
cation the merits OF the case were not drawn
in question; and when the District Judge de-
process there was the end OF his legitimate func-
tions.
Whatever he may have said in opinion be-
yond that was not a judicial decision and can
not be quoted as authority, although Ii may be
quoted as reasonable argument. That case
came to the Supreme Court, on application for
a certiorari, to bring the whole case before that
Court for review. The report of it is not yet
published, although copies can be had at the
clerks office. The Supreme Court said, and
with very great pTopriety, awe are only An
appellate tri bunal, reviewing the judg-
ment OF courts indicated in the statute
by way of review, and this is not
among the class of cases which we have a right
to review. Therefore we will not issue certio-
rari for the purpose OF bringing it before us
We have nothing TO do with the merits OF the
case. We only say that we have no Jurisdiction
10 grant what you, Mr.. Pugh, ask shall be done
IN the case" The Court further said that
''these military tribunals, in their proceedings,
are not subject to be reviewed by the civil
courts; for they are not so organized, and their
proceedings cannot come before the civil courts
Their road to a finality is to the head of the
Executive Government We have nothing to
do with it Now, there certainly is fair and
final disposition of this matter, showing that it
has no application whatever TO the present
case.
hope my colleag ae and myself Will be able
throughout the discussion of this case so to
present it, so TO consider and argue it, that no
exception can be taken to the course Of IT,
either by the tribunal which is to try the cases
or by the public. The great difficulty on the
present occasion is this The public mind is in
that feSerish and excited state that almost
everybody thinks it is necessary to go outside
OF the issues, and to be dealing blows which are
supposed to have some effect on other subject
matters God forbid that that should ever oc-
cur before a tribunal which has charge of the
liberties, lives, and properties of men. | trust
that it Will not be the misfortune, through ex-
element or otherwise, of the counsel employed
in this defense to 90 outside in relation TO any
thing Many suggestions may be made, some
have been made, which, before other tribunals
and IN other places where discussion OF such
questions is proper, nigh be fairly issues, and
might be discussed.
These issues have significance before
another tribunal, and not here, and they will
not be presented. When l question one of the
leading propositions of my learned adversary
j do it, not with reference to the outside trial
OF these issues, and not expecting that this tri-
bunal Will consider that the case depends upon
them. That suggestion was this That our
Constitution was constitution of peace
Thank God it is. | trust there is not man in
this room who would not hazard his ALL in
Guiding his life to sustain that Constitution as
one OF peace. On the question of whether any
OF its provisions are imperative during the
war shall not enter into discussion and
merely say that do not assent to that promo
sition But decline to discuss 1t. because it
has no applicability to this case. The extent |
OF the suspension OF anything has nothing to
do with the issues now before US.
The Judge Advocate assured the court that |
1t W as the duty of the United States to protect
the soldiers from frauds of electioneering |
agents, and to protect them in all their rights
1t is right that the Government should pro- |
tect the soldier in all his rights, far as those
rights spring from his relation to the Govern |
ment as soldier. When the soldier and the |
Government enter into the contract by which |
he serves, ii is understood that the Govern. |
ment VIII protect the soldier in his rights so |
faE AS they relate TO the discharge of his duty |
as soldier And l trust that duty will al |
ways be performed by the Government That |
is NOT this question. The soldier does not vote |
nv xirluA OF his relations dirr