Evening star., 1865-02-03
LOCAL NEWS,
The Case of Col. Baker.

Baker case, in substance as follows:
The defendant was indicted for assault and
battery and false Imprisonment upon Stewart
Gwynne, and was tried and found guilty at
the present term Of the Criminal Court of
the District, held by one OF the justices Of this
court.
court below, on the ground that the Court erred
in several OF its instructions given to the Jury.
This motion. with its reasons, had been duly
certified into this court by the judge who tried
the cause, and had there been fully argued on
both sides. The case was before them on TWO
bills OF exceptions to the admission of evi.
denee taken by the defendants counsel, in ad-
ditien to the numerous reasons assigned for a
new trial.
The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr.. Chase,
addressed q note to the Secretary Of War, Mr..
Stanton, Of which the following is copy
TREASURY bspARrMEsT, Dec. ai, 1867
Sir: Will you obiige me by directing Colonel
Baker to make such investigations and arrests,
and exercise such custody OF persons arrested
as may find needful for the detection and
punishment of frauds on the Government, com.
mitted by persons in this Department.
"YoHrs truly, P. CHASE.
"E. M. Stanton, Secretary OF War.
p. ). Please send me copy OF what
ever order You may issue to Col. Baker.
Endorsement on above note
Referred 70 Mr.. Watson, with direction to
detail Colonel Baker to report TO the Secretary
di, ectioR. EDWIN M. STANTON"
Mr. Watson accordingly detailed Baker by a
verbal order, and sent him to the Treasury
Department for his instructions, when he
received the following order from the Secre-
tary:
TREASURY DEPARTMENT., Dec. "a, 1S63.-
Sir: By uirtite OF order from the Secretarv of
Var, of this date, you are hereby directed to
report to the Solicitor OF the Treasury, and re-
ceive and recognise such Instructions as he
the same with all possible promptness.
"Respectfully, S. p. CHASE,
.Secretary Of Treasury.
"Col. J.. g. Baker, &c"
Baker, in obedience to this order, reported to
the Solicitor of the Treasury, who set him to
work, with general and unlimited license to
investigate the frauds which were supposed to
exist in that department. After some DAYS,
Baker began to entertain suspicious that Dr.
Stewart Gwynne was engaged in defrauding
either the Governme0t or somebody else, and re.
ported his suspicious and his reasons for en-
tertaining them, to the Solicitor, and declared
his purpose to arrest Gwynne. The Solicitor,
it appears, made no objection, although he
gave no express authority for that purpose.
Gwynne was at the time contractor to fur.
nIsh certain machinery, as well as membrane
paper, for making the fractional currency
was occupying room in the Treasury build
ing, which had been furnished him by the De-
partment, for the purpose of making expert
ments and facilitating his efforts to fulfil his
contract. Baker alleged that he had good
grounds to suspect that Gwynne was engaged
in defrauding either to Government or his
and was resolved to arrest Gwynne and seize
papers. This was on the 9th of January, 1854,
and Baker Immediately proceeded to q wynnes
room, arrested him there, took possession of
all his private papers, and locked him up in
room and under guard for about thirty hours:
and this without any other authority than
made was Immediately reported to the Secre
tary OF the Treasury, who expressed no disap.
proVal OF the deed. The day following, at Ba.
ger gers instance, Gwynne was committed to the
a YNrton in fh hiso
an order obtained from the Secretary Of the
Treasury; and there remained L, .vul a I'M .nt
tfschargsd BY order OK x Inc Secretarv Of the
Treasury, who had become satisfied that the
suspicious against him were wholly ground
Gwynne subsequently prosecuted Baker tor
false imprisonment, in arresting him and lock.
ing hlm up; and that is the indictment upon
winch BAKER mas been tried in the case before
us;
To this indictment the defendant pleaded not
g1llty, and gave IN evidence, by way OF iusti-
fcation, the authority given to him. as above
stated, which he claimed amounted to an order
from the President of the United States or
an order issued under the authority of the
President.
1t was not made q question in tho casa
whether the President himself could constitu.
uonally, or by law, give such an order: but on
tne contrary, 1t was conceded by the prosecu-
lon that ne mad been invested with that power
Dy the act OF Congress of Sd March. 1863, au-
thorIZng the privilege OF the writ of habers
corpus to be suspended; and that question was
not passed upon by the Judge before whom the
cause was tried.
The only questions were whether the acts of
the two Secretaries. as above set forth, in the
absence OF any express authority to them, or
either OF them, from the President ought to
have been coHclusively presumed TO have been
done by order of the President; and, if So
whether the orders to Baker were, on their
face, sufficient in law to authorize GWynne's
arrest and imprisonment.
After revie ewlng at length the relations of the
preceding orders to each other, Judge Wylie
says:
81 regard, therefore, the order to him from
the Secretary of War, as comforting upon him
no authority whate yer, more than a permission
to be absent for time from his duties in the
War Department, and to act as a police officer
In regard to certain matters of a civil character
mnlcn " tne treasury Department desired to have
investigated; nor do / believe that more than
this was intended by that order II more was
intended, the order to that extent was outside
tne me Lawful authority Of the War Department,
and, therefore, void to that extent
Ii, then, the acts Of Baker in making the
arrest IN question were net done under orders
Ifom is M the Secretary Of War, the authority from
the President claimed as the defendants iusti.
hcation in this case could not have descended
to him through that channel.
linen, II we turn to seek the needed authority
we find that Secretary carefully esche wing the.
responsibility, by telling Baker that By o,rtle OF
.a on 9Taer Jrom The Secreta Of War. he is to pro-
OF the Treasury neither assumes to act on his
own responsibility in the matter as Secretary.
President. ~ 0
1t has TINS been shown that the arrest in
question was not authorized by either of the
Secretaries. N ~
1t was not pretended at the trial of the cause
mat any direct order had ever been given by
the President himself for making the arrest or
.nat ne ever knew such proceeding was in
1t follows, therefore, that the arrest was
made in point of fact without the order Of lhe
President, or any order issued under his
authority, or even processing to have been so
issued."
The Judge then refers to the laws enacted bv
Congress First, the act providing for the ar.
rest and punishment by court-martial Of any
PERSON In lne i,,, navai or tmiitary service |
Government, and the section relating to the
of the crime, and the paragraph referrine ~
the jurisdiction OF the courts Of the District
Of Columbia, and says: |'
"If DIR. Gwynne had been guilty.. or even
been suspected @ M o. OF being guilty Of committing
OF his contract, it is plain thai ba go