The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1865-10-13

ity of any other kind. (Hurd on Habens I'm.
pus, 166 ct. seq.) The only important
dissent from This doctrinewas by Chief Justice
Kent in Fergusons case, g John r. 1857 The
other Judges did not agree with the Chief JUS
tice. and in Stdcys case 90 John r. 239,) the
question was decided in favor of the jurisdic.
ton of the State Courts, and the same eminent
Chief Justice issued an attachment against o
Major General of the United army for making
an evasive return in o case of military impris-
onment. Chief Justice Tilghman, of Pennsyl-
vania in o case cited By Hurd, after other CO..
gent arguments in favor OF the Jurisdiction,
says that in case OF citizen imprisoned on the
borders of Lake Erie, or of Ohio, under color
of United States authority, with but one Fed
eral Judge in the State and he residing in Phil
adelphia, should the State Courts deny him a
hearing, 1t would be practical denial of the
remedy. at the present time in the absence of
Judge Nelson, there is no Federal Judge in
state OF Minnesota. But this question Is not
applicable to this case Courts Martial are not
courts OF the United States nor Federal courts
within the ordinary meaning Of these terms.
They are no part of the judicial system con.
templated by the Constitution, consisting of
one Supreme Court and other courts inferior
thereto, whose Judges hold during good be-
hsviour, &c. Courts Martial are not infeysor
to the Supreme Court ia the sense of the word
in the Constitution which means subordinate A
before the Supreme Court by q writ of error.
eertsoves or any other proceeding. This was
expressly denied on the application made bv
Senator Pugh, of Ohio, for o writ of error in
the case Of Mr.. Vallandigham. They are not
courts Of law, but merely military courts, hav-
cognizance only Of military offences. Within
their Jurisdiction their judgments can only be
reviewed by the commanding general and his
superiors. Outside of their peculiar jurisdic.
tiOn they have no color of authority, more
than any other assembly of lawless persons
If they assume to try person for murder, and
convict him and cause him to be executed, the
act Is murder on their part, and that of all per-
sons who aid in executing their judgment.
They cannot claim that the acts are
done under authority Of the United States, for
the government cannot be charged with vio-
lating the laws or sanctioning their violation.
The government never breaks laws. Its Off
GERS may, but cannot justly claim such acts as
the acts of the government.
If this court martial had no jurisdiction of
the alleged crime then Pryor is illegally held,
and 1t appears from the respondents return,
that his life is in danger from a Judgment of
no more validity than that Of mob. Pryor
is an obscure and friendless person, and it may
seem to matter little what becomes of him, but
the principles involved are vital to free peo-
ple-the right of trial by jury; and the efficacy
of the writ of Aabe0s corpus, to relieve in case
Of illegal imprisonment. To fearless judi
ciary alone can the people look for the preserv-
alton of the rights intended to- be secured by
this writ-not to the executive, for it Is intend
ed as the most powerful restraint against the
abuse of executive power. I ask that full
obedience to this writ be enforced.