The Cleveland leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1865-1865, 1865-06-20
FROM wAsIIIaGaOS,

1 WAkHiNGTOh, juno II.
Mr.. Csmpbell read the argument sd.
| dressed to the President and gentlemen OF
the military commission, signed by Hon.
| R4vtrdy johnson and concurred IN BY Mr..
Fred. A. Aiken and Mr.. john NJ Clam
pitt, associate counsel for Mrs. Mary z.
SurrAtt. 1t commences by asking if tho
commission has jurisdiction OF the cases
before, and by calling attention to the great
importance of the question. Il refers 10 the
] duly of the commission 10 consider it and
declares if the commission is unaut horized
the act of establishing it is usurpatiOn on
the part of the Executive. 1t then pro
ceeds TO say that the Constitution defines
the powers and duties of the Executive
ard provides punishment for his violation
If them. Therefore he possesses no powers
beyond Whist the Constitution confers, and
this &C., being beyond his authority. can
furnish no defense sgsinst the legal conse-
quences of whatever may be done under 1t,
and whAtever is done ia utterly illegal.
The Commission must therefore decide
this question before prOnouncing judgment;
that > tribunal ike this had no ilrisdietion
over them, other than military officers, and
he believed it to be evident tnAt offsnses
defined and punished by the civil law, and
whose trial Is provided for by the same
Law, are not the subject of military juris-
diction. A military, as. cOntrsdistinguish-
ed frsm q civil Cfsnse, must therefore be
made TO appear, and whenit is 1t must also
appear that military law provides Tor its
trial and punishment. Ii that law don't
furnish mode of trial or sfix punish
ment, the case is unproVided for, and as far
as military power ia concerned, is to 90 un-
punished; but as either the civil, common
or stHtute lHw embraces every species
of offense that the United States
have deemed necessary to publish
in all such cases. The civil cturts sre
clothed with every necessary jurisdiction.
In military court if the charge does not
state crime provided for generally, or
specially by any of the articles of war, the
prisoner must be discharged. C0Bden,
psgs 2 635 Nor is it sufficient that the
charge is known 20 military law. The
offender when he ommits it must be sub
jsct to military jurisdiction. General law
mas undisputed Jurisdiction over all. The
mi itsry Law pus forth no such
pretension. 1t aims solely to enforce an
soldier the soditionsl duties he has assumed
Il constitutes tribunals for the trial Of
breaches of military law only. (0BrieD,
pags 26 and 27) The one code, tne civil,
embraces sll citizens, whether soldiers or
not, other military law has no jurisdiction
over any citizens as such, if the provisions
Of the constitution clearly maintain the
same doctrine The executive has no su-
thority to declare war, to raise and sup
port armies, to provide and maintain a
navy, or to make rules 7 the government
or regulation of either force these powers
ave exclusively in the hands of Congress
The srmy cannot b. raised or have laws
for its government and regulation except
- Congress shall provide The power Of
Congress was granted by the convention
without objection. In England the King,
IS geperal,i.smo of the whole kingoom,
has ibis sole power, though Parliament has
frequently interposed and regulated for it.
self, but with the United States it was
thought safest to give the entire power to
Congress, since otherwise summary Rad
severe punishment might be inflicted. No
member of the convention or com mentatOr
on the Constitution since hss intimsted
even that this Congressional power could
be applied to citizens not belonging to the
army or navy. The powers given to Con-
gress is to MAKE rules for the government
and regulstion If the land sndnRval forces.
No artince of in9ennitv can make these
words include those VINO do not UelUug to
the army or navy, and they are therefore
to be construed to exclude ali others as if
the negative word to that effect were added.
And this is not only obvious meaning of
terms, considered by themselves, but is de-
monstrable from other provisions of the
constitution, so jealous we're cur ancestors
of migrated power, and so vigilsnt to pro
tect citizens agsinst it that they we're un-
willing 10 leave him to a safeguard which
q proper construction as Originslly adopted
furnished. In this they resolved that
nothing should be left in doubt. They de-
termned not only to guard him against
executive and judicial but sgainst congress
sionsl abuse. They adopted the fifth con-
stitutional amendment declaring that no
psrson shall be held to answer for q
capital or otherwise Infamous crime,
unless on q presentment or indictment of
the grand jury, except In cases arising IN
land or naval forces or in militia when in
sctive service in time of war or public
danger. This vieW is elaborated by refer
ence to the highest legal authority, and
constitutional questions are discussed at
length. The 6sn amendment which our
fathers thought so vital 10 individual iber-
ty when assAilsd by the government prose-
cuLiop, is but deal. In the course Of his
argument, Mr.. Johnson said he had
brought forward this question Of jurisdic-
tion onlybecau-e no thOug ht it was MS duty.
He did lot seek impunity TO any one en-
gagged in the horrid crimes of the night Of
A,k e ha ivr1l
courts OF this district have ample juTisdic-
lion, and will exercise it if the Cases are
submitted to them.
AS TO the case of Mrs. SUrrstt he refer
red to her as a woman educsted de-
vout Christian, ever kind, stfsctionste and
charitable; with no motive disclosed TO US
that could have caused her to participate
| in the crimes in question. He
ssid we had no testimony showing
that she was q participant. He would
say nothing of the testimony that would
be- revived by his associates as to the evi'
dence to the outlines of Weicbmsn and
Lloyd. He said if the facts they s.sse
we're true their knowledge of the purpose
TO commit the crimes, and their particlps'
ton in them, is much mere satisfactorily
established than the alleged knowledgt
and participation of Mrs surrst.
Mr.. Aiken stated to the court that hC
should not be prepared until Wednesday
to read mis- argument, in the case OF Mr.
| Sufratt .-a ....
This dslsy is attributed to the vOlumi
nous evidence previously to be examined
by him .
| ACTIDENr.