The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1865-07-07
THE ASSASSINATION TRIALS.
Argument Of Mr.. Bingham In Reply
Z T3T'd sito Reyerdy y ohnson. f

WAsHINGroN, JUNE 27.LThe argument of
NJ. Binghams assistant Judge advocate, in re-
Ply 70 the several arguments in defence of Mrs.
'Sufrah and Others, contains the following
The rebellion in aid of which this conspiracy
was formed, and this great public crime com.
mitted, was prosecuted for the yindication of
no right, for the redress of no wrong. but was
itself simply criminal conspiracy, and gigan-
tic association The court had already over.
ruled the plea of the jurisdiction. He would
pass It over In silence but for 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 court of Justice
has noslegd. existenceyand no power to hear
and determine the issue Joined IN making this
avefmept. Counsel should show how the
lresae9t could otherwise discharge the duty
enloinea upon him by his oath to protect, pre-
serve and defend the constitution and take care
the Laws be faithfully executed
The assertion that the civil courts are open
IN this district he answered by saving 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 force and would the rebel bands intesting
the vicinity allow their confederates to be tried
In this OF any other court? -.. olL
4. The conspirator who assassinated the Presi-
dent was not arrested by civil process, but
pursued Dy military power, captured and slain.
WAS this an act of usurpation? Who in all
this land is bold enough or chase enough to
assert IT.? If the President is justified in this
act what law condemns him for asserting in
like manner and subjecting to trial according
70 miasary avs all other parties to this con-
I | The Judge Advocate argued that the court
haying, been constituted by the President It
was not 10 their power as interiors % disobey
and declate;the oct . 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. y
Gentlemen might as well ask the Suprerne
Court to decide that the President had no au-
thority to nominate, and the Senate had 10 au-
fnosity TO confirm thu! Judges COMPOSING
proceeded at length Ia reply to the argument Of
counsel citing precedentS add restrtming the
action OF the Government He showed that all
Proclamattohs the President issud during the
rebellion for the suppression. ofyhe, same, and
among them the one providing for the trial of
all rebels and insurgents, thef aiders and abet-
tors, by court martial or Military commission
ers, were ratified by CopIrees; also that the
Supreme Court had deSded that 50 much of
these proclamations asprovided fof the court
martiaIs of military commissioners needed M
ratification. The Hdge Advocate did not re-
view the testimSfy. After Associate judge
Advocate Binghh had delivered his argument
the Court adjoyfned until p NJ tomorrow.