The daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1863-1864, 1864-11-04
The Election Fraud.

Inc ELECTION EFauus
n WAsHIEeroN, Nov.3-The trial of Col
North, the New York State agent, and
Levi Cohen. and M. M. Jones, convened to
day before the United States Military Com
mission Of which Gen. Doubleday is Presi.
dent, and Col. Foster Judge Advocate
Messrs. r. Il. Gillett and D. N. johnson
appear as counsel for the prisoners; the
aoove named prisoners together with Reeves
and Scodeld, are charged with conduct
prejudicll to good order and military dis
cipline and of fraud toward the New York
State elections, in that they forged the
names of 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 fraudently
issuing divers and sundry blanks which
purported to be signed by officers and sol
diers in the military service of the United
States authorizing tue parties to cast their
votes at the ensuing State and National
election. with the intention to defraud the
true elector of his rights. The counsel for
the prisoners pleaded to the jurisdiction of
the court arguing, LIST. that the court bad
no Jurisdiction over the parties; secondly,
over the subject latter, thirdly, that the
matter was not within the jurisdiction of
the National Government; fourthly, that it
was a subject over which the National Cow
eminent had never legislated; fifth, that
there was no law of the Federal Governs
ment authorizing the jurisdiction OF mill
tary court, for the trial of any one not in
the military service of the United States.
Mr.. Gillet argued that the federal tribu :
malls had not in any way or manner author>
lied the trial of persons by federal court,
for crimes committed at any point in the
bounds of any State or States. If the &C
cused had committed Q crime against the
State of New York, it might appear affirm
atively that the crime is one against the
State consequently the tribunal of the Uni
ted States had no jurisdiction: 1t was only
q violation of the laws Of New York. and
the laws of New York prescribes the PEN
alties and modes of trial. If an ofense was
committed in any other State against law
of the State of New York, undor the extra
dition law, the party charged with the
crime is liable to be taken to New York
If the parties here charged have not COM
mitted q 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 offense against tie United
States, unless it is specially made so by
statute. 1t is not averred that the prison.
ers have committed an offence against the
United States.
There are no common law ofenses in
United States Court and it expressly rules
that what are common law ofenses Of
England are not lawful offenses against the
United States. No offence, such as these
prisoners are charged with has been com
mitted by a statute Of the United States
Court; and consequently this tribunal has
no Jurisdiction, The court must assume
jurisdiction, for no power has been cons
ferred upon it to try such cases, and man
cannot be arraigne1 when it is impossible
to put your finger on law designating
the crime. What would be the effect if
this court assumed to execute the laws Of
New York? Would an acquittsl or con-
victiop stop the mouth or tongue Of justice
in New York? Will this, or any other tri-
bunal, assume to deprive New York Of vin-
dicating her own laws2 1t matters not
what the decision may be here, the state
of New York demands the offender, if
there is one, and insists on receiving him.
1t is the justice of New York that must
overiake these men if they have been
guilty. If any other tribunal tries them,
what is to be the measure of their punish
ment2 In all laws there is fixed punish
ment 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 60. There are in
these matters grave consequences, both to
the laws of the country and to the parties
charged. 1t is the rule of all courts that
have not general jurisdiction, that, before
they can carry into effect their findings,
they must make up the records; and what
law can this court cite giving them jurisdc-
ton over this case2 80 N".'
Mr.. Gillet then cited the case of q
court martial during the Mexican war
BY an officer named Hughes, 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 believed in
all sincerity, that this court had no juris-
diction over the case. II the parties 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 Ad-
vocats in reply, said that if the last argu
ment of Mr.. Gillet was true, then mills
tary commission could not try spy or q
guerilla, for they were MT subject to the
military orders OF the United States. The
right Of trial BY jury was right of which
all clsimed, but guerilla could not de-
mand such trial, nor could traitor de-
mand to be transferred into a court for a
trial in time ofwar.
Certain peace powers were necessarily
suspended.
Col. Foster referred to the case of VaIlan>
digham; in oil these cases the state and
condition Of the country must be consider
ed; il IS charged that the rights Of the sol
ders have been violated, and a. they are
in the field and not in State where there
B.