Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-06-20

and VINO testified before the Grand Jury,
are: Edward Bradford, Walter b. Taylor,
G. G. Collan, II. w. p. Garnett, Robert B.
Wood, W.J Moore, Richard Evans, W. @.
Morrow, Francis McCoust Jr- Ludlow S.
Morrison, j. ii. Hendrew, James B. Barry,
Jr., c. Baglar, j. f. Milligan, w. A. Dun
can, Henry w. Thomas, Isaac Davenport,
and w. b. Lyons. -..... a.;
Reverdy JOhnsOn's Argument Be
fore tho Military Commission.
WASHINGTON, June 19.-Mr. Clampitt
read the argument addressed to the Presi-
dent and gentlemen of the commission,
signed by Hon. Reverdy johnson and con-
Cured in by Mr.. Frederick A. Aiken and
Mr.. John NJ. Clampitt, associate counsel for
Mrs. Mary Il. Surratt. 1t commences by
asking if the commission has Jurisdiction
of the cases before 1t, and calling attention
to the great importance of the question;
refers to the duty of the commission to con-
| slider it; and declares, if the commission is
unauthorized, the act establishing it is an
| usurpation on the part of the Executive.
| 1t then proceeds to say: The Constitution
defines the powers and duties of the EX-
ecutiye and provides impeachment for his
| violation of the law; therefore he possesses
no power beyond what the Constitution
coniers, and his act beyond can furnish no
defense against the legal consequences of
what is done under it, and whatever is
done is utterly void. The commission must
therefore decide this question before pro-
nouncing judgment. That tribunal like
this has no jurisdiction over them other than
military officers, is believed to be evident.
That ofTenses defined and punished by the
civil law, and whose trial isprovided for by
the same law, are not the subjects of militia
ry jurisdiction, is of course true. A military
as contradistinguished from civil otiense,
must therefore be made to appear. and
| when it is, it must also appear that military
law provides for its trial and punishment
by military tribunal. II that law does
not furnish mode of trial or afiiX pun
ishment, the case is unprovided for, and as
far as the military power is concerned, is to
go unpunished; but either the civil, COM
mon or statute law embraces every kind of
offense that the United States or States
have deemed it necessary to punish. In all
such cases the civil courts are clothed with
every necessary jurisdiction. In a military
court, if the charge does not state crime
provided for generally or specifically by
any Of the articles of war, the prisoner
must be discharged. (O'Brien, page 25.)
Nor is it sufficient that the charge
is of a crime known to the military
law. The offender, when he commits
it, must be subject to military juris-
dction. The general law has supreme and
undisputed Jurisdiction over all. The mil
itary law puts forth no such pretension; it
aims solely to enforce on the soldier the
additional duties he has assumed; it
constitutes tribunals for trial Of breaches
of military duty only. (O'Brien, PIP.
26 and 27.) The one side, the civil,
embraces all citizens, whether soldiers or
not. The other, the military, has no juris-
diction over any citizen, as such, if the
provisions of the Constitution clearly main
tain the same doctrine. The Executive has
no authority to declare war, to raise and
support armies, to provide and maintain a
! navy, or to make rules for the government
and regulation of either force. These pow
ers are eXclusivelyin Congress. The army
cannot be raised or have laws for its gov
ernment and regulation except as Congress
shall provide. The power of Congress was
granted by the Constitution without objec-
ton. In England the King, as Generals
simo of the whole kingdom, has this sole
power, though Parliament has frequently
interposed and regulated for itself. But
with us it was thought safest to leave the
entire to Congress, since otherwise sum-
mary and severe punishment would be in
flicted. No member of the convention or
any commentator on the Constitution since
has intimated that even this Congressional
power could be applied to citizens not be-
longing to the army or navy. The power
| given to Congress Is to make rules for the
government and regulation of the land and
naval forces. No artifice of ingenuity
can make these words include those
who do not belong to the army and navy,
and they are therefore to be constru-
ed to exceed all Others, as if negative
words to that effect had been added.
And this is not only the obvious meaning,
Of the terms considered by themselves, but
is demonstrated from other provisions of
the Constitution. So jealous were our an
cestors of ungranted power and so vigil
ant to protect the citizen against it, that
they were unwilling to leave them to safe
| guards which prior construction of the
Constitution as originally adopted furnish
ed. , In this they resolved that nothing
should be left in doubt. They determined,
therefore, not only to guard him against
Executive and judicial, but against Con-
gressional abuse. With this view they,
| adopted the fifth constitutional amendment,
] which declares that sno person shall be
held to answer for a capital or otherwise
d, infamous crime unless on o presentment or
Indictment of a grand jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
militia when In active service In time
of war or public danger" This
view is elaborated by reference to the high
est legal authority, and the constitutional
questions are discussed at length. The
sixth amendment, which, our fathers
thought so vital to individual liberty when
assailed by governmental prosecution, is
but deal. II
In the course of his argument, Mr.. john
son said he had brought forward, this ques-
tion of jurisdiction only because he con-
scientiously believed it to be his duty. He
did not seek impunity to any one engaged
in the horrid crimes of the night of the
l4th of April. Over them the civil courts
of this District had ample Jurisdiction, and
will faithfully exercise it, if the cases are
remitted to them. Ri /,
d AS to the case of Mrs. Surratt, he reter-
red to her as woman who was educated o
devout christian, ever kind, affectionate aud
charitable, with no motive disclosed to US
that could have caused her to participate in
the crimes in question. He said we had no
evidence, unoontradicted, showing that she
was participant. He would say nothing
of the testimony. That would be reviewed
by his associates. AS to the evidence of
Weichman and Lloyd, he said: II the facts