Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1865-11-17
The TrihI Of JEFFERSON Davis-ImpOr.
Ia ."at... tant Legal Opinion.

A concurrence of events has given TO
the trial of Jefferson Davis peculiar inter-
est The late course of several of the Sc
ceeded States-the insolent ingratitude of
many of the late traitors--the defeat of
Holden in North Csrolina--the speech of
Humphreys in Mississippi-the refusal to
repudiate the rebel war debt--the reluct-
ance with which the anti-slavery amend
ment of the National Constitution is ac-
cepted-ana the restlessness under the
Congressional, oath-too plainly show that
mercy to trHitors is cruelty to our eoun-
try" These tremendous Union maiorities
at the late elections assume a startling sig
nifcance to any one who doubts that the
people of the loyal States have the most
intense feeling on this subject. The un-
expected views of Chief Justice Chase,
who does not conceal his opinion that
Davis should not, or cannot be tried here
by the Supreme Court of the United States
while martial law prevails in the city of
Washington will probably induce the
President TO resort to a military trial Of
the late chief of the rebellious govern
ment. Many of the Oldest and ablest of
our publicists contend that this should have
have been done at first and that the
offence Of Davis comes clearly within the
authority of the National Constitution. 1t
would be a little curious if the objection
Of the Chief Justice should constrsin the
Government to act upon these views. In
connection with this matter very import
ant opinion has lately been advanced by
]. P. Bishop, the author of the celebrated
work: ''Commentaries on Criminal Law /"
In the third edition of his work Just pub
lished he has the following important
note which is of great immediate value:
al. The expediency of handing over a
/ rebel, especially a leading rebel, to be
| tried by the civil tribunals, after great
/ rebellion, which had ripened into per-
feet war, has been subdued, isquite anOth-
/ er matter. If we assume it to be the law
of nations, which it certainly is not, that
such a rebel cannot be executed as a
traitor, then it would not be wise to vio-
late this law, though the violation should
involve no breach of the Constitution.
Probably also no officer of our govern
ment would be even coustitutionally JUS
tilted in violating the law of nations
though the question in this case would
not be for the Judiciary, but for the Pres
ident. --.--
4 =. Il, l4lSAA1 q lCoNAA6 ACOCA 10 W Do GA
eeuted, and the law of nations approves
the highest expediency, even almost the
law itself, demands that he shall not be
sent to the judicial tribunals for his SEN
tence, but that this shall be pronounced by
military tribunal. Let us remember
that the law of nations does not prescribe
the court in. which the trial shall be had
We are, in this matter, to look to our in
ternal system Of laws. ~
i'3. Let US illustrate the matter BY cas-,
now before Us. Mr.. jefferson Davis, tht
Header of our secession rebellion is, at thu
: time Of this writing, prisoner in tn,
hands of our military powers, having beer
captured by the army in time Of war
Once it was a rule, the writers on the Law
! of nations tell US, to kill all prisoners o
: war. Afterward the death penalty wa
mitigated, if mitigation it can be called, /,
slayery. AT length the Law VI nations wa