The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-10-28

Final Settlement Of the Questions OF
Treason, state Sovereignty and seces-
sioa. n
Public curiosity, for some time past, has
naturally been drawn to JEFF. Davis, and to va
rious speculations and coniectures Of the pur-
poses of the government in his case. From the
petitions from various sources in the South for
a pardon in his behalf, it would appear that the
idea has widely prevailed among the South
crn people that he will be released eventually
as bad investment, and that the only thing to
shortening of his term Of imprisonment. In
the authoritative information, however, that he
is to be indicted, arraigned and tried before the
Supreme Court of the United States for the CAPT.
tai crime of treason, all such theories Of the in
tentions Of President Johnson are dissipated.
Davis, with whose capture the appeal to arms
by the States involved In the rebellion was de-
cided against them beyond any possible chance
of reparation, has been reserved by the govern
menr for the final settlement Of those pernicious
Southern distractions which gave birth to the
rebellion.
AAio siA"A AOA tACuoOn DCAUAO tnC OuPASAsS
Court will necessarily involve decisive judg-
ment upon those Southern constitutional alb
stractions, with the decision upon the charge
of treason. The counsel retained on the side
Of the government in support Of Attorney
General Speed, are, as we learn, William M.
Evarts, of New York; John H. Clifford, formerly
Attorney General of Massachusetts, and General
Lowell H. Rousseau, Of Kentucky, whose quail
fcations as a lawyer are said to be hardly
inferior to his abilities as soldier. The
counsel retained by the prisoner are Charles
O'Conor and Ransom H. Gillett, Of New
York. Here we have sufficient array OF legal
strength on each side for an exhaustive
discussion of the great constitutional ques-
tons involved in this case. The arguments
of counsel and the decisions of the
court will unquestionably form the most
important and the most valuable judicial chap
ter in the history of the country from the
foundation of the existing general government
down to this day. 1t will settle all those dis
turbing and revolutionary Southern heresies
which ought to have been settled in the trial
of Aaron Burr, fifty years ago, and it will fix
the government within the impregnable ram
parts of established constitutional law.
The line of defence in behalf of Davis will
probably embrace that of Lord John Russell
in his correspondence with Mr.. Adams, in
his reference to the responsibility of England
for the damages inflicted upon our commerce
during the late war by Anglo-rebel cruisers.
4Jot: I,a 10 ohalc IF
Davis that in the blockade, and in the ex-
change Of prisoners, &C., he was recognized az
belligerent, de fdcto foreign Power, and
that in being so recognized he ceased to be
traitor-if traitor before-within the mean
ing Of the constitution. We do not suppose,
however, that the defence of Davis will be
limited to this argument, but that 1t will COM
prehend plea of acquittal in consideration Of
the prevailing public opinion of the country
on State rights, from the famous Virginia and
Kentucky resolutions of 1898 and '99 down to
the last quarter OF the last year of Buchanan's
State sovereignty administration.
But, whatever line of defence may be
adopted in behalf of Davis, we expect that
the decision of the court will be that, as the
constitution declares that "treason against the
United States shall consist only in levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies,
giving them aid and comfort" Davis is guilty
Of treason; that the right of secession on the
part OF State is not constitutional right;
that it is the duty of the federal government to
maintain the Union to the extremity of war
against seeding State or combination of
seeding States in warlike array; that the
Union is not league of States, each possess
ing the sovereign right Of secession, but that
it is q sovereign nationality, formed, not by
the States, but by 1--WE, the people of the United
States" in convention assembled, and so rati-
fed by the States.
We anticipate the settlement Of these points
as the substantial results of the trial Of JEFF
Davis before the Supreme Court We do not
see how Davis can escape the Judgment of
treason; but we expect that he will be let off
with his sentence in his pocket. The great
object Of his trial Is to obtain from the Supreme
Court of the United States decisive settle
ment of all these Southern heresies OF State
rights, from which, in connection with the agi-
tation of the slavery question, we have reaped
the heavy harvest of blood and fire of the
late fearful rebellion. Slavery is out of the
way, State sovereignty will be settled in the
trial of JEFF. Davis, and thus he will be made SO
immensely serviceable to the Union that his re-
lease to go his way and sin no more will
meet with no objection. The war has decided
that State secession, even under a powerful
armed combination of States, cannot prevail;
and by the Supreme Court, in the trial Of
Davis, il will be decided that under no plea Of
constitutional authority can secession here
after be agitated. After this decision we shall
have no more resolutions of 1913 and $50, no
more Hartford Conventions, no more South
Carolina notification experiments, and no