The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1864-11-04

Tue last quotation vas 2343. The pre-
vailing opinion, however. is that th.
present high price. kept up by spscula
tors, cant be long maintained.
FROM WASHINGTON.
National Baskisg sseia<isn-rriai a,
Oa1. North.
Washington, Nov. 8.
The official statement shows that on
The FIRST Nonday 10 October the resources
of the Nationsl Bsnking Association were
over e207, ,OO0. 900, includiDg abont So.
SS6, Doom loaDs and diacoauts, and nearly
80, ,OOO, 900 in specie and other lawful
.noney. Their profits arc stated at
$8 600, 600.
The trial Of Col. North, the New York
State Agent. and Levi Cohen and 81. NJ.
Jones. commenced to-day bsfors IT, q. s.
Military Comnission. Of which derer.l
Doublsday b President, and Col. Foster
Judge Advocate. Mssss. n. r. Gillette
.nd J. D. Mcpherson appeared Is counsel
for the prisoners.
The above named persons. TO kethe or
With Reeves & Schoield, are charged
with conduct prejudicial TO good order
and military discipline and Of fra ud to-
wnrd the New York State electid dns, in
that they forged the names Of officers and
soldiers % what purported TO be ballots
Of said soldiers 10 be used st the election
TO be held on November 9Th.
They are also charged with falsilv and
Ifandulen.ly issning divers and 4undry
blanks which purportsd ID be signed by
officers and soldiers ia the miiiisty ser
Woe OF the United States authoriribg 2 Ger.
tain parties TO cast their votes a. the en-.
suing State and National election With
the intend to defraud the true eled .or OF
his rights
Mr. Gillette, oae Of the counseis for the
prisoners. pleaded, first, the jurisdiction
OF the ccart, arguing that The court had
no Jurisdiction over the parties secondly.
over the subject matter third. that the
matter vas not within ihs jurisdid dsion of
the government; fourth, that il was a
subject over which the ns,ional govern
ment had never iegis!ated and
ff,h, that there was no ax of the Federal
government authorizing the Jurisdiction
Vt military court for the trial Of any one
not in the military service OF the Ugi.ed
States.
Mr. Gillette argued ;he Federal tribun-
ald had not in any way or manner au.holi
ty the trial Of persons by . Federal
court for crimes commntel agsinss the
laws Of any State or States II the ae-
cused has committed crime il was on jy
= violation OF statute OF the State ol
New York aud consequently the tribsnals
Of the United States had no jurisdiction
Ii su oGsnse had been committed ii
Was against the laws OF New York, and
that same law prescribed the peuslue,
add modes Of trial aud punishment. II an
oHense vac cealanit;ed in any other State
sgainst Law Of The State Of Nes York
under the ex,rsdi'ion ls- the party charg
ed With the crime is liable to be taken I,
New YORK.
Ia the State Of New York it must 40
pear afirmasiyely thai tie crime is OF
ag ainst the statute laws of the U. s., a
il has been decided that there can be q,
oEensc.
Is is nota averred that the prisoner
have committed "a ofenss against th
statutes OF the United States and it ez
pressly rules that what are mnIon la,
ofeases Of England are not Law offense
against the United States.
No offense such as these prisoners al
charged with 10 known to the statutes {
the United States and consequently thi
Iibunal has no Jurisdiction.
| The court then assumed jurisdiction fl
no power has been conferred on il TO I,
such cases against the United 6satss u,
, less it is specially made 80 BY statute
Il And . man cannot be arraigned whe
it is impossible to pat your finger on
law designating the crime Whit woul
. be the effect il this court assumed TO ex
cute the laws of the State Of NeH York
Would al acquitaal er conviction stop Il
mouth or tongue Of justice in New Yorl
Will this or any other tribunal assume
. deprive New York Of viniicaiing her on
. laws? II matters not what ths decisic
may be here. The State ef New York o
9 mands the offender, if there Is ore, nj
o insists on receiving him. Il il the JUST
D OF New York that must osertsks the
e men it they have been gully. II a.
y Other tribunal tries them. what is /
!, measure Of punishment for them? Ia
laws there is fixed punishment for th'
J, violation, but what is to be their punis
II ment here? Ii there is no limit, Ia
10 there 10 no boundary beyond which /
le court cannot 60. There are jn these m
ters grave consequences. both 10 the Ia
to Of the country and 10 the parties charg,
1t is theory of all courts that have
y general jarisdiction. that before III
70 can carry Into effect their findings, Il
must make up the records. and what
can this court cite giving them iulisd
ton over this case? Will they assu
b. it because it would have been . pro
~ subject for legislation ?
u. Mr. Gillette then cited the case Q
court martial ordered 1t Puebla dur
the Mexican war BY an officer mar
Hughes. and was afterwards mulctet
heavy damages 10 The district conrt,
las canse the military court had no iuis
ilie tion over tho Offenaa OharuAd Tho "a