Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1864-11-04
rRIAL oF COZ. NoRrH.

.aFs eF r. WAsHIEGToN, Nov. 3.
The trial of Colonel Samuel North, tAe
New York State Agent and Levi Cohen
and M. NJ. Jones, commenced to-day before
the United States Military Commission, of
which General Doubleday Is President and
Colonel Foster Judge Advocate. Messrs.
R. H. Gillett and ]. D. Mcpherson appear
as counsel for the prisoners.
The Rboye-nsmed prisoners, together
with Reeves md Schodeld, are charged
with conduct prejudicial to coed order
and military discipline, and Of fraud
toward the New York State cleo
tors, in that they forged the
names of officers and soldiers to what
purported to be ballots Of said soldiers TO
oe used at the election to be held on Tues
day next. They are also charged with
falsely and fraudulently issuing divers and
sundry blanks, which purporled to be signed
byy officers and soldiers in the military serv-
ice Of the United States, authorizing GER
tain parties to cast their votes at the ensu-
ing State and National election with in
tefIt to defraud the true eicctOr Of his
right.
prisoners, pleaded to the jurisdiction of the
court. arguing that the court had no juris-
diction over the parties secondly, over
the subject matter; thirdly, that the mat
ter was not within the jurisdiction Of the
National Government fourthly, that it
was q subject over which the National
Government had never legislated, and,
afthly. that there was no law OF the Fed
ersI Government authorizing the jurisdic-
ton of a military court for the trial OF any
one not in the military service Of the
United States. ---.-...r
Nj. Ginet. argued that the Federal tri-
hunais had not IN any way or manner au-
thorized the trial OF persons by e Federal
eourt for crimes committed against the
avs of any State or States. If the accu-
sed had committed crime, it vas only in
violating statute of of the State Of New
York. and consequently the tribunals OF
the United States had no jurisdiction. II
an ofFense had been committed, It was
] ngainst the laws of New York, and thAt
.Sme law prescribes the penalties
| and modes of trial and punishment.
| If an offanse had been committed in any
| ,ther State against lsw of the State oi
| New York under the sKtradition law, the
marty charged with toe crime Is liable to
| be taken to New York. If the parties
here charged have not committed crime
Ea0ainst the State of New York, 1t must ap-
pear afirmAtively that the crime Is one
AGAINST the statute laWs Of the United States
! as it has been decided that there can be ne
offence against the United States unless i
is specially made SO by staEute. 1t Is no
owned that the prisoners have committed
L an offence against the statutes Of tn
/ limited States There are no common Law
/ offences in the United States, and it ex
nrsssly rules that common law offence
Of England are not law offences agains
the United States. .....
No offence such as these prisoners sr
| CHARGED with has been created by tn
ststpte of the United States, and conse
oueptly this Tribunal has no Jurisdiction
'rbe court then assumed jurisdiction, for y
mower has been conferred uponit to try tn
case, and man cannot be arraigned whe
st is impossible to put your finger on la'
designating the crime. What would
the effect if this court assume
10 execute the laws of New Yorl
Would an acquittal or conviction stop Ii
mouth or tongue Of Justice IN New I 1orl
/ Will this or any other tribunal assume
3 deprive New York Of the right to Wind
cate her own laws? 1t matters not VII
the decision of this tribunal may be, Il
q State of New York demands the ofende
if there is one, and insists on receiving MI
d II il the Justice Of New York that mu
;. oyertske these men if they have be
guilty. If any other tribunal tries the
% what is the measure of punishment
8, for them? In all laws there Is 3 fX
d punishment for their violation, but what
n to be this punishment here? If there
) no limit, then there is no boundary beyo
which the court cannot go. There are
er these matters grave consequences, both
j. the laws of the country, and to the part
charged.
Itisa theory Of all courts that have nc
General jurisdiction, that before they (
" carry into effect their findings, they m
make up the records And what law {
this court cite, giving them jurisdiction o
this case2 Viii they assume it becaus'
= would have been proper subject for LEI
lation?
Mr.. Gillett then cited the case of a co
martial, ordered at Peubla. during
ar, mexican war, by an officer named Hugi
,ut and he was afterwards muleted IN hei
1li damages in the District Court because
military court had no Jurisdiction over
ast offense charged.
The Consul SAID he believed, in all
lat oerity that this Court had no jurisdlci
,u- over the case. If the parties charged. v
g a crime had been in the service OF
i United States, ard had been subject to
itary orders, the Court would then n
had Jurisdiction. ,...-.
ur- Colonel Foster, Judge Advocate, in re
er- said that if the LAST argument of MIR.
ast lett was true then Military Commits
could not try a spy or guerrilla,
vas thew were not subject to the military or
Of Of the United States. The right OF trla
I'D. Jury is a right to which ali arsaentlt
ar ar We. a guerrilla could not demand
'he a trial, nor could traitor demand TO b
dicted in a court before trial.
In time Of war, certain peace po'
!. were necessarily suspended.
the Colonel Foster refers TO the case
! Of yallandigham and quoted largely
,ere the decision ofthe United States SUPP
$50 Court, upon the application Of Mr.. I
arly for Vallandigham's release, TO show.
Wh5l thew recognized the fact that in ur
and peculiar cases military courts
Is of full powers and jurisdiction. In all
case the state and condition Of she g