The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1865-07-07
~'''t.~ W ~ z = Y
THE ASSASSINATION TRIALS.
Argument OF MIR Bingham III Reply
u 1sTid siio RayerayJehnson. Ed

WASHINGTON, JUNE 2T.lThe argument of
NJ Bi9ghamz assistant Judge advocate, in re-
Ply. e the several arguments in defence of Mrs.
'cniTam ana others contains the following
The rebellion in aid Of which this conspiracv
was formed, and this great public crime com.
mttted, Wasnproeecpted for the yindicatiou of
no right for the redress of no wrong. but was
itself simply aerinirM conspiracy, ana pipau.
tic aeeeelsdQn The court had already over.
ruled the plea Of the Jurisdiction. He would
pass Il over In, silence but f6r.the fact that it
had been sgravely argued BY counsel for the
accused. Denying the authority Of the Presi-
dent to constitute this commission Is an aver.
ment that this tribunal Is not b court of Justice.
has noelegds e1i4encegaud no power to hear
and determine tho issue Joined IN making this
aVermepA Counsel should show how the
Preside9t could otherwise discharge the duty
enj0ined upon him by his oath to protect, pre-.
serve and defend the Constitution and take care
the lava be faithfully executed. r
Inc assertion that the civil courts are open
In this distdcG he answered by saviu0 that
they. were closed throughout half of the re.
public, and were open in the District only BY
the force OF the bayonet. Withdraw the mill
tary i9cea and would the rebel bands intesting
the vicinity allow their confederates to be tried
In this OF any other COURT s.al e,,E III
4, The copspirator who assassinated the Presi-
dent was not arrested by civil process, but
pursued BY military power. captured ana slain.
Was this an act Of usurpation3 Who in ali
this land IL bold enough orssbnse enough to
assert II? 1.-THE President ID hstified in this
act what law condemns him for asserting Il,
like manner and subjecting to trial according
70 military laws all other parties to this con.
n The Judge Advocate argued that the court
haying, been constituted by the President Il
was not Ia their power as interiors b disobey
end deelat4,the Get o military usurpAtiOn? ? Be.
sides the Supreme Court had decided that the
precept OF the judicial officers is recognition
of the authority from which It is derived. The
proposition is absurd. IN
Gentlemen might as well ask the Supreme
Court to decidefnt the Rreddent had no au-
thortty to nominate, and the Senate had 10 au-
thogity too c0nfrm the Judges COMPOSING
United States Courts The Judge Avocate
proceeded at length a febb}y to tie ardzment Of
counsel citing pfecedmts s1Id srestrrhing the
action Of the Government He shC8ed that all
Proclamatf0h President issud during the
rebellion for the mppresaipn. ofyhe, same, and
among them the one providing, for the trial Of
all rebels and insurgents; thqk aidefs and abet-
tors, by court martial or Military commission
ers, were ratifed by Cor fess; also that the
Supreme Court had deSdea That 90 much Of
these proclamations crowded fo the court
n1artials of military 0ntlniseioners needed no
ratification. The 1dget Advocate did not re-
view the testim0y. After Associate Judoe
advocate Bingh,A had delivered his argument
the Court adjOJ med until / p. N. tomorrow.