Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1864-12-23
LOCAL NEWS.
The Case of Col L., G., Baker,

CHIAlNAL CoC RT~-BrTrc JIttgS W JtIs.
The United States VS.. Lafayette T.. Baker:
Indictment Tor false imprisonment This Is q
prosecution for the Incarceration Of DR.. Stuart
GwynIe, OF Massachusetts, in the Old Capitol
prison. by Colonel Baker, under subs tantIally
the following circumstances
Certain frauds were sus pected in the Treasu.
ary Department, for the in vestigation OF which
at the instance OF Mr.. Secretary Chase, the
Secretary of War detailed the prisoner, who
is well known as the chief OF the detective
corps. The name of DR.. Gwyrne, the prose-
cutting witness, does not appear to have been
mentioned in connection with the propOse u
investigation. Colonel Baker suspected DR..
GwyDDe, and, mmunicating his suspicious
TO the Solicitor of the Treasury, a converse.
sation between the latter and Colonel Baker
ensued, as to the purport OF which the testi.
monv is conflicting. On one side it is alleged
that BSker declared that he would arrest
GwynDe upon his own responsibility, and
wanted no higher authority. On the other
hand, it is so rendered TO show that the
Solicitor gave him the necessary authority. 1t
must be borne in mind that the Solicitor is the
competent prosecuting agent OF the Treasury
Department.
Baker proceededto arrest DR. dwyane with
out Il warrant detained him in his Office, and
then, In company with The Solicitor, opened
his bureau, and seized and examined his
papers After the examination OF his private
papers, the Solicitros, acting for his superior,
The Secretary of the Treasury, issued an order
Old Capitol, where he remained for some thirty
days. Finally, upon fuller examination, Dr.
Gwynne was discharged, honorabIy ACQUITTED
OF all completely OF the alleged frauds.
The District Attorney was supported by
Messrs. Joseph A. Bradley, Sr, and j. J.
Coombs. Hon. +. p. Stanton and q. H. Utter
mehle. Esq, for defence
1t was argued flor the defence that the pris-
oner, in makipg this arrest, was acting under
competent authority, and was not, there fore,
personally liable Tor any consequences. The
counsel held: lst. That the circumstances Of
the times called into exercise the extraordinary
powers Of Government, and justified the use Of
system OF summary expeoients, adequate TO
the suppression ofrevolutionary agencies: that,
ia proportion to the ascendency of such a sys.
tt m, the sIlDgency OF ordinary methods OF
arrest must be relaxed, and greater Latitude
allowed the principle ofimplied authority. I'd.
That the authority OF the Secretary OF the
Treasury to direct such an arrest under the
circumstances was fairly lmplied;that the con.
nectiCn Of the Solicitor, as the ompetan, agent
OF The Se Secretary OF the I reasury, with me ar
rest as made, although it was, formally, sub.
segment TO Cte actual arrest, operated to legal.
fZs it back to the moment when Colonel Baker
laid hands on Dr. GWynne.
On the part OF the prosecution, IL was con.
tended that under no circumstances could the
summary system of arrest be without lawful
limits; that though in Executive Is lodged the
poUer of suspending the habeaS corpus by the
Constitution, and tortiort by the act OF Con-
eress, yet that the principle of the supremacy
of The civil over the military law had never
been ignored by the present Chief Magistrate,
who had throughout, and especially in his
proclamation No. 6, which governed this case,
distinctly enumerated the classes OF cases in
which extra judicial arrests should be made,
which on the principle srpTesSi0 unius erclusi0
aHeriaS, was taDtaTnount TO an order against
such arrests as this oBe that the act OF the Sd of
March, 1853, section !, by implication vests some
power Of this character in the Secretary OF
War and ia the Secretary of State, and on the
principle cited excludes all other su oOrdinates
of the Pres sident, leaving in him solely and eX.
clusiyely the power OF executing the statute
power which he could not delegate to the Sec
reary OF the Treasury, less till to the Solicitor
or any other subordinate, without some ex-
press and affirmative act. The Secretary of
the Treasury,i II is true, may act under implied
authority OF the President, bnt the implication
is confined rigidly within the sphere OF his
functions as Secretary of the Treasury. AS
such, it conld not be pretended that he could
have authority by mere implicat ion to issue
warrant for the arrest of person charged
with criminal offence or a misdemeanor.
Therefore. had Mr. Secretary Chase given an
express order it would not avail the prisoner
but 1t had not been claimed that he ever gave
an order tor the arrestef Dr. Gwinns.
II the Secretary hadDo power to order this
arrest, less sun could the Solicitor OF his de-.
parsnleIt have power. But even did not or
der 1t, for this arrest was made before the So.
Hcitor gave the order in question:; for the eyi.
dence, in the judgment OF the prosecution, die.
not show that any authority was, impaired to
Colonel Baker by the conversation of the So
lGltor with him.
The pI eceding points are collected chef Y
from the vigorous address OF General Caring
tor, the District Attorney, to the jury in clos
The defendants counsel offered eleven dif-
ferent prayers. =.
Judge Wy lie took up the prayers and in
structe the Jury thereon. .'
To The FIRST prayer, (Which was refused)-
"That the order of the Secretary OF War de-
failing Col. Baker in the Treasury Department,
as requested by Secretary Chase in his letter
OF December gath, 1868, was made under the
authority OF the President, and il the arrest in
this case " as made in pursuance OF that order,
then by virtue of the fourth section OF the act
OF March 3, 1868, the defendant must be ac-
quilted"
Judge Wylie replies
The Secretary of the Treasury sent writ.
ten request to the Secretary Of War that the
latter would permit Col Baker to In vsstigate
certain alleged frauds in the Department: of
the Treasury, and to make arrests if neces-
sary under his direct ons. In reply to this
request the Secretary of War did detail Col.
Baker on especial duty" under the direction
OF the Secretary OF the Treasury.
The instruction of the Court is that the effect
OF The permission or order thus given by the
Secretary Of War was spent and exhausted the
moment that Baker reported himself for SER
vice TO the Secretary OF the Treasury, In obedf-
enCe to 1t; and that Baker is not protected by
said order of'the Secretary Of War from the
consequences Of his acts, while after wards en-
gagged in executing the Instructions of the
Secretary OF the Treasury. That this order OF
the Secretary OF War merely placed Baker
under the directions Of the Secretary Of the
Treasury, and was not authority for any other
purpose or any further extent. :,
. This order having been made within the
scope Of the lawful authority OF the Secretary
Of War. should be taken to have been
authorized by the President, but is no
Justification for the defendant in this case,
the order having no other effect than to place
Col. Baker under the directions OF the Treas.
ury Department sa..a- RI. ..s.fs-1 49, ,s-5
TO the second prayer (refusedl-ssThat
the letter OF the Secretary OF the Treasury
10 the defendant, Of December 81, 1853,
directing him to recognize the Instr uct,Ons
OF the Solicitor was also an order given
under tbe authority of the President; aud If
this arrest was made IN purs ce of at order
in connection with the aforesaid order of the
Secretary OF War, the defendant must bs ac-
Judge Wylie, says:-By the letter OF Decem-
ber "a, 1881, the Secretary OF the Treasury di.
re eted the defendant to recognize the instrnc.
Bahef did afterw ards'in obe6ience 10 fustfuc.
the foliettoy M - ~ tatau m ha 81