Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1864-11-04
The Administration Outrages -.
Progress of the Mock Military
Investigations.

AmvestignuiOns.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3.-The trial of Col.
Samuel North, the New York State agent,
commenced to-day before the United States
Military Commission, of which General
Doubleday is President, and Col. Foster
Judge Advocate. Messrs. II. III. Gillett and
j. ID. Mcpherson appear as counsel for the
| prisoners.
The above named prisoners, together
with Reeves and Schofeld, are charged
with conduct prejudicial to good order
and military discipline, and of fraud
toward the New York State electors, i'm
that they forged the names OF officers
and soldiers to what purported to be
ballots of said soldiers, to be used at the
election to be held on Tuesday next. They
are also charged with falsely and fraudu-
lently issuing divers and sundry blanks,
which purported to be signed by officers
and soldiers in the military service of the
United States, authorizing certain parties
to cast their votes at the ensuing State and
| national elections, with intent to defraud
the true elector of his rights.
Mr.. Gilbert, one of the counsel for the
prisoners, pleaded to the jurisdiction of the
court, arguing that the court had no juris-
diction of the parties; secondly, over the
subject matter; thirdly, that the matter
was not within the jurisdiction of the Ma
| subject over which the National Govern
mcnt had never legislated; and filthy, that
there was no law of the Federal Govern
ment authorizing the jurisdiction of mill
| tary court for the trial of any one not in
the military service of the United States.
Mr.. Gilbert argued that the Federal tri-
| bunals had not in any way or manner au-
thorized the trial of persons by Federal
court for crimes committed against the
laws of any State or States. II the accused
had committed a crime, it was only vio-
lation ofa statute of the State ofNew York,
and consequently the tribunals of the Uni
| ted States had no jurisdiction. If an Of
| fense had been committed, it was against
law of New York, and that same law pre-
scribes the penalties, and modes of trial
| and punishment. If an offense was COM
mitted in any other State against law of
the State of New York, under the eXtradi-
tion law the party charged with the crime
| is liable to be taken to New York. If the
parties here charged have not committed a
crime against the State of New York, it
must appear affirmatively that the crime is
one against the statute laws of the United
States, as it has been decided that there can
be no otfense against the United States, I'M
less it is specially made so by statute. 1t is
not averred that the prisoners have COM
mitted an cffense against the statutes of
the United States. There are no common
law offenses in the United States, and it eX-
| pressly rules that what are common law
offenses of England, are not law offenses
| against the United States. No offense, such
| as these prisoners are charged with, has
been created by statute of the United States,
and consequently this tribunal has no juris-
diction. The court then assumes jurisdic-
| tiOn, for no power has been conferred upon
| it to try cases, and a man cannot be arraign-
ed when it is impossible to put your finger
OH a law designating the crime. What
would be the effect if this court assumed to
execute the laws of the State of New York?
Would an acquittal or conviction stop the
mouth or tongue of justice in New York?
Will this or any other tribunal assume to
deprive New York of vindicating her own
laws? 1t matters not what the decision
may be here, the State of New York de-
mands the offender il there is one, and in
sist on receiving him. 1t is the justice of
New York that must Overtake these men if
they have been guilty. If any other tribu-
nal tries them, what is the measure of pun
ishment for them? In all laws there is
fixed punishment for their violation, but
what is to be their punishment here? If
there is no limit then there is no boundary
beyond which the court cannot 90.
There are in these matters grave conse-
quences, both to the laws of the country
and to the parties charged. 1t is rule Of
all courts that have not general jurisdic-
ton, that before they can carry into effect
their finding they must make up the record,
and what law can this court cite giving
them jurisdiction over this case? VIII they
assume it because it would have been a
proper subject for -?
Mr.. Gillett then cited the case of
court martial ordered at Puebla during the
Mny Ua m off
and he was afterwards mulcted in heavy
damages in the district court, because the
military court had no jurisdiction over the
offense charged. The counsel said he be-
lieved, in all sincerity, that this court had
no jurisdiction over the case. If the par
ties charged with crime had been in the
service of the United States and had been
subject to military orders, the court would
then have had jurisdiction.
: Col. Foster, Judge Advocate, in reply,
said that if the last argument of Mr.. Gil
could not try a spy or guerrilla, for they
were not subject to the military orders ofthe
United States. The right to trial by jury
was right to which all claimed to be enti-
tied, vet a guerrilla could not demand such
a trial, nor could a traitor demand to be in
dicted in court before trial. In time of
war certain peace powers were necessarily
suspended. C0l. Foster referred to the case
of Vallandigham, and quoted largely from
the decision of the United States Supreme
Court upon the application of Mr.. Pugh
for Vallandigham's release, to show that
they recognized the fact that in urgent and
peculiar cases military courts had
full power and jurisdiction. In all
these cases the State and condition of
the country must be considered. 1t is
charged that the rights of the soldiers have
been violated and as they are in the field
and not in State where there are recog-
nized courts of law, military tribunals are
the proper ones to take note of the matter.
The District of Columbia has been consid-
cred as the field. The parties charged with
crime here are also considered as in the
field, and consequently assuming the fact
that soldiers in the field had been defrauded,
and by parties also in the field, they were
answerable to military court as the only
one having any proper jurisdiction.
At the conclusion of COL Fosters remarks
the court adjourned, at Mr.. Gillett's request,
till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The Pirate Tallahassee.