Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1865-09-16

could not, Ia my opinion, rscsive before the Mil
itary Commission, subject 20 orders from the Of.
ice OF The Judge Advocate General. that FAN
PLAT. on the merits Of he case, that rough Jus
ice Which usually chsrscterixss the DECISIONS Of
the rude aud unlettered but equitable frontier
men who hold the courts Of Judge Lynch in the
West. Their proceedings are quite as illegal
aud Irregular ~ those OF the regulators" as
they are called in TIE West. and not half 50
fair. rrrr.sf ~ .Trfef- -
The statement Of ssne facts which oecarred
N the course of my connection es counsel with
the case, will, think. saiisfy any-ssDdid mind
that my belief was well founded
Some weeks before the arrsigument Of the
prisoner set Of charges were served on him.
upon which we're made the preparations for biz
defense. The press was teeming with attacks
upon him. A reporter applied 20 me fora copy
OF the charges. and seeing no improperly In
Publishing them. per nitted him TO have 10.
Soon after its publication / observed q para
graph in the Chronicle, q Bureau organ In Wash
ngton. TO the effect there we're several sets Of
charges; that the genuine" charges would not
be made known until the srraignment,, and that
those published in the papers were not correct.
PAID verF little attention 10 this az the tine But
on the day when the Commission convened for
the first time, being Monday, shortly before il
met, we saw new set of charges which had
been delivered to Wirz about o'clock on the
preceding day, presenting for the first time the
charge OF conspiracy and many additional speci-
fcstions- The statement of the Chronicle was
thus verified Now while il is a common prac-
tee TO amend and alter legal proceedings oc
casion may require. before answer, II is to me
novel aud dangerous practice where several
sets of charges are actually prepared. to serve
one set on defendant TO amuse him aud reserve
another and different se, TO the last moment on
which 70 try him.
At the FIRST session Of the Commission, sundry
preliminary objections were submitted to the
Commission, aud also motion TO quash the
charges. Alter discussion, these were over
ruled oy the Commission; among them, the
specific objection which vas made the pretext
by the Judge Advocate General for reorganiz-
ing the Court, The Commission had been sc
lected by the War authorities, and the decision
OF these questions belongs 10 tsem-not 10 the
Judge Advocate General, until they came before
him at the cad OF the trial for review. If fatal
defects existed there was = plain aud simple
course to take, according 10 the usage and the
analogy OF the law-t0 enter an acquittal OF re-
cord on the first charges. and present additional
ones afterwards. leaving the question OF the total
irregglarisy of the first proceedings, aud the
question of the former acquittal, to come up
fairly for decision upon the trial OF the new
charges
The plea of not guilty having been pat in, and
the case OF the prisoner fully committed to the
Commission, an adjournment took place. At
the next meeting, il was the duty OF the Com
mission to have caused their record TO be read
and corrected in presence of the prisoner. IL
iods not done No record was ever read, or TO
my knowledge perfected, of the proceedings upon
the first Get OF charges. Ii was systematically
eyaded The Court went Immediately into
secret session, motion of the Judge Advocate
and upon opeaing their doors, adjourned with
indecent haste, through the CO operation OF the
President of the Commission and the Judge
Advocate. the catching the word from the
other. The adjournment was indefinite as to
time. BY the suddenness of the order to adjourn.
given with as much promptitude order to
retire from the Monocacy, the defendants coun
sci, though appealing to be heard, were proven
ted from putting on record (if there was any
record) their objection, or a motion to discharge
the prisoner, the Judge Advocate. cfamoring to
silence discussion, aud announcing the novel
doctrine that the law of parliamentary bodies
forbidiing debate motion TO adjourn was
applicable to this tribunal
No record had been read On this day the
prisoner was not present in the room at any time
The whole proceedings took place in his absence
The Bureau organ before referred to was careful
to cover this point in ts report, and stated that
the prisoner was present, and went into patticu-
lars as TO his appearance and the manner in
which be employed himself. All this was wholly
untrue.
On the morning of the next day, August ODD
received a note from the Judge Advocate, WHO
had announced al the time of the indefinite post
penepent that he would give no notice of the re
assembling OF the Commission, advising me of a
meeting 40 morrow" and that amended charges
would be presented. and orders" read which
would obviate my INSTRUMENTATION which
had been passed upon, disposed of and overruled
by the ommissicn. "Orders" 20 court of
justicels
The programme was plain. The law OF mill
tary courts forbids any alterations or amendments
in the charges after the plea Of not guilty They
can no more be amended than an indictment in
court OF law. (See Benet. D. 81; De Hart, o.
lO2; Tyler, p 2l7) Then illegal or wrong
iul act, wrongful because Illegal, an alteration of
the charges, which the Judge Advocate or Com
mission had not the right to do directly. was to
be accomplished indirectly, by an "ordsr" dis
solving the Commission, its record, never read
or perfected, TO be suppressed and the ma glc of
another order invoked TO rssuscitate it and re-
vive its powers This to avoid the regular course
of closing the record, abandoning the first trial,
and after its termination presenting new charges,
taking the risk of plea of former acqaittal
| immediately prepared written motion for
the prisoner discharge, founded on the previous
irregularities and the proposed alteration of the
charges, intending to present it at the very open
ing OF the Court, aud intending also to insist
upon the reading of the record. Upon consult
ing the veracous Chronicle. 80 much more re.
liable in its statements of what the Commission |
tcas GbOufO do than its reports of its past trans
actions, found brief notice OF & meeting on
that day.
The Judge Advocates note, dated August
3d. said the next day in doubt, but
gave up other engagements and concluded to at
tend at the CourI room. The Judge Advocate
says tina; this note was written on the night of
the 22i and dated wrong. Il matters lot when |
II was written or sent, but If il was dated amss
by mistake, there is an end of the matter. The /
most unusual slip Of this kiud is TO date paper |
day in advance The Commission met-no
record was read
The Judge Advocate said to the President |
have those rules that | spoke of now"
The President said Lot the Court be |
cleared"
After private session the doors were opened. |
/ asked leave to make motion, The Presi |
dent said | would have ample time. stated that |
1t vas a motion which took precedence of other
business, and asked leave to make it. { 1t was /
the motion to discharge the prisoner which j |
desired TO submit to the ''od Court before the |
spell c. powder shopId dissolve it, and absolve /
the sweru obligation taken two days before to |
try the first charges preferred against the pris |
oner The Pa sident not responding to me
called the answeIi.sg eye OF the Judge Advo- |
cate The Judge Advocate produced paper |
and read: The dread tribunal, which, but q