The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1864-06-28

TUESDAY. 5tNE se.
valaanaswhnan--.A Cnalleuge.

[fron the Chicago ns,bsnal

valaanAavna1n--.A CAaaleuge.
The Copperhsad pssm sssums that Val
landigham's trial and banishment were
illegal. In no Instance hsve they attempt.
ed to show how Or Why, assumption with
them takes the place Of Argument. We
clialange them 70 answer the following
series of questions in such manner a.
ito prove the legality Of his sentence !:
l. Does state Of war exist between
the Government and certain rebellious
combinations Of men in various parts Of
the United States
2. Has not the war on various COCA
sions extended into Kentucky, Ohio and
Indiana by rebel invasion, and into Illi-
nois by rebellious outbreaks, 20 - TO re-.
quirs the presence Of United Statss troops
in each Of those States to repel and sap.
press them
3. Is It not . necessary part Of the duty
of the President a. the constitutionally
declared Commander,in-Ch Chief Of the army
of the United States, in cases of .insurrec.
tion, rebellion or invasion, to erect into
military departments such districts Of the
United States ~ are, or az he thinks will
become, the seat of war, or in which it
will berneoessary to employ the military
forces of the United States States 70 sup
press rebellion or invasion 7 sA
A. On the foregoing facts, was it not
within the scope of the Presidents power,
discretion and duties to create Kentucky,
Ohio, Indiana and Illinois into military
department, aud to appoint General Burn.
side to its commando
5. Was It not within the discretion.
power and duty Of Gen Burnside, as mil
litary commander Of such department,
to make and publish an order forbidding
all persons therein to give aid and COM
fort to the enemy, either by speeches or
through'the public press. and was not
such an order, when made, binding, and
valid military law. on all persons 50 for
bidden9
s. Such a military order having been
made, should not all violation Of it be
tried before military court. deriving its
authority from the same source from
whence the order itself emauated?
Z. Vallandigham having been charged
with violation Of such order, and having
been SO tried, found guilty aud sentenced
to be imprisoned during the war in Fort
Warren. were not such trial, finding and
sentence lawful and ii not, wherein
were they unlawful?
3. If Vallsndigham was lawfully under
sentence OF imprisonment in Fort War
rem during the war, was it not within the
power, discretion and duty of Abraham
Lincoln, President and Commander in
chief, to suspend his sentence on such
conditions as he might see fit, provided
that they were less severe than the SEN
tence, or that VAllandigham should &C..
cept them.
3. The President having suspended
the sentence on coalition that Vallandig.
ham should cross into the rebel lines. and
remain outside our lines during the war;
and vallandigham having SO crossed, was
not this Punishment so called, legal as q
condition Of the suspension Of the original
sentence? -
10. Upon his return, in violation of
that condition, before the termination Of
the war, is not the original sentence in
full force, and is not Vsllsndigham law
fully liable at any time to be arrested and
sent to Fort Warren?
We challenge the Copperhead press of
the whole country to give negative an
swer to either of the above ten questions
and to sanction the position they will
thereby assumeby quotation from single
author on military law.