Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1865-12-07
The Trial of TraI tors.

At length we have in an official form
the views of the Executive relative to the
trial of persons charged with treason. The
President states in his Annual Message
that the Federal Courts will not be conven-
ed in the States lately in rebellion until the
question of reconstruction shall have been
acted upon by the National Congress, and,
as it is stated that persons charged with
treason should have "fair and impartial
trials in the highest cirH tribunals of the
country" we have the reason for delay in
bringing Jefferson Davis and other State
prisoners to trial. Andrew johnson de-
clared in substance at various times during
his candidacy for the office of Vice Presi-
dent, that treason was the highest crime
known to our laws; and President john
son began his administration of
the Chief Magistracy with the declara-
ton: "Treason is a crime to be punished,
not p~ardoned." At a later period, when
what seemed like an excessive number of
pardons was being granted, and many pa
triotic persons were seized with a deep fear
for the welfare of the country, the Presi-
dent declared, in response to the appeal
of South Carolina for executive clemency
in favor of the late head of the rebellion,
"Treason must be Defined Precisely
what would be necessary to define trea-
son-whether conviction, sentence and
subsequent pardon, would be sufficient
or whether the unobstructed execution of
the law was comprehended, the public
were not informed. We are glad that in
the present instance the President uses
language which canno be misunderstood.
Hedesires the trials heretofore mentionedto
occur ain order that the Constitution and
the laws may be fully vindieated the
truth clearly established and affirmed that
treason is q crime, that traitors should be
punished and the otfense made infamous;
and at the same time, that the question
may be judicially settled, finally and for
ever, that no State of its own will has
the right to renounce its place in
the Union" Aside from the pur-
pose of furnishing traitors and making
treason 'fnfamous," the President, it will
be observed, wants the question of the
right Of secession to be "judicially set
tied" We cannot see that there is any
cause for anxiety on this subject. Our
Southern fellow-citizens regard this ques-
ton as asettled, finally and forever by
the arbitrament of the sword. If they ac-
quiesce in the decision, certainly we ought
to be satisfied. Suppose a fancy
should find a place on the judicial bench and
decide that the right of secession was in
herent in the States. What then? Could
the events of the past four years be I'M
done or would it be desirable that they
should be? IF the right of secession had
been regarded by the government as an
unsettled judicial question, undoubtedly
twould have been brought before the
proper tribunal when the first attempt at
disintegration was made. Having waged
a four years war, and won by force of arms
ali the government claimed as right and
legal, which claim was supported by the
entire loyal population Of the land, we can
see no good reason why the Executive
should be so desirons0f'a Judicial decision
now. But there is a Chase instead of a
fancy upon the Supreme bench, and there
is no cause to fear the result should such a
question be raised. That traitors are to be
punished, and that the seal of judicial con
demnation is to be placed Upon treasond-
bic attempts to disrupt the country, will
be hailed by the loyal masses as joyful
tidings.