The Cadiz sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1864-1911, 1865-06-28
The Argument Of Reverdy John
son Before the Military Com
mission,

son Eetore the Military Com
mission.
WASHINGTON, June 10 Mr. Clanpitt
read the argument addressed To the Prtai-
! dent aud gtntlemen of the Commission,
/ signed hy Hon. RcSerdy johnson, and con
CURED in by Mr. Frederick A. Aiken and
/ NJ. John VI. ClampiJt, associate counsel for
/ Mr. Mary L. Surlatt Ii commences by
a. king 1t the Commission has jurisdiction If
/ the cases before IL, and calling attention TO
! the great Importance Of the Ques ton, rvfcrs
/ tu the uuty OF the commission To consider il,
and declares ii the Commission Is mauthor-
/ izud, the act establishing it is an usurpaiion
! ON the part Uf the Executive. H. then pro.
ceeds TO say the Constitution defines the
powers and duties OF the Executive, and
| provides punishment for his violation of
them; therefore, he possesses no powers be-
/ yond what the Constitution conicrs, aud this
act beyond authority, can furnish no defense
! against the legal consequences of what are
done under 1t, and whatever is done is utter
ly void.
The Commission must therefore decide
this question before pronouncing judgment
that Il tribunal ike this has no jurisdiction
over them other than military officers. Ii
is believed to be evident that oiIenseS driu-
ed and punished by the civil law, and where
trial is provided for the same law, are rot
the subjects OF military jurisdiction, is of
course true. A military as contra distiu-
guiShed from civil oifense must therefore
be made to appear, and when it is, it must
also appear that punishment is by military
law and military tribunal. If that law
docs not furnish a mode of trial or afix a
punishment, the case Is unproyided for, and
as far as the military power is concerned, is
TO go unpunished, but as either the civil,
common or statute law embraces every spe-
cies Of Offeuse 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 spe-
cifically by any one of the articles of war. the
prisoner must be discharged 70 Bricn 5,
p. 1861; nor is it sufficient that the charge is
Of crime known to the military law. The
offender, when he commits it, must be sub
iect 10 military jurisdiction. The general
law has supreme and undisputed iulisdic-
tion over all. The military law puts forth
no such pretention, it aims solely to enforce
on the soldier the additional duties he has
assumed. 1t constitutes tribunal for the
trial of breaches of military duty only TO-
Bren, page 26 and so. The one code, the
civil, embraces all citizens, whether soldiers
OF not. The other, the military, has no
| jurisdiction over any citizen, as svch.
Ii the provisions Of the Constitution clear
! ly maintain the same doctrine, the executive
has no authority to declars war, to raise and
support armies, to provide and maintain
navy, or to make rules for government and
regulation Of either force. These powers
are exclusively in Congress. The army can
not be raised or have laws for its govern
mcnt and regulation except as Congress
shall provide. The power Of Congress was
| granted by the Convention without ohjec-
ton. In England the king, as Generals
| simu OF the whole kingdom, has the sole
! power, though the Parliament has frequent
| ly interposed and regulated for ITSELF but
with us it was thought safest to give the en-
| tire power to Congress, since otherwise sum-
mary and severe punishment might be in
dicted. No member ofa convention or any
commentator on the Constitution since has
intimated that even this Congressional pow
er could be applied to citizens not belonging
to the army or navy. The powers given to
| Congress is to make rules Tor the govern
ment and regulation of the land and naval
forces No artiiice Of Ingenuity can make
these words include those who do not belong
to the army and navy, and they are, there
fore, to be construed to exclude all others as
if negative words to that effect had been ad
ded to conspirators, and this is not only the
obvious meaning Of the terms considered by
themselves, but is dcmonstrablc from other
provisions Of the Constitution.
SO jealous were our ancestors of migrant
ed power and so yigilant to protect the cit
i2ens against it, that they were unwilling to
trust INN to the safeguards which proper
construction of the Constitution, as origin
ally adopted, furnished in this, they rcsolv-
ed that nothing should be left in doubt.
They determined therefore, not only to
guard him against executive and judicial,
but against Congressional abuse. With
this view they adopted the fifth constitution
aal amendment, which declares that no per-
son shall be held to answer for a capital or
otherwise Infamous crime, unless on pre-
sentiment OF indictment Of the Grand jury,
except IN cases arising in the land or naval
forces, Of in the militia when in active ser
vice IN time of wa or public danger.
his view is elaborated by reference to the
highest legal authority, and the constitutions
al 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 |
| ln the course his argument Mr.. John
son said he had brought forward this CUES
ton Of juriSdctien, only because he conSc-
entIously believed it to be his duty, He
did not seek imprnity 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 remand |
ed to them. -..
As to the Gaze of Mrs. Surratt he refer
| red to her as a woman who was educated a
devout Christian, ever kind, affectionate and
| 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, uncontradcted. of showing that
she was participant lie would say moth
ing Of the testimony that would be review
! ed by his associates, as to the evidence of
Wechman end Lloyd, He said if the facts,
they state, were true, their knowledge of
purpose to commit the crimes, and their
participation in them, is much more salts
iactorily established Of the alleged knowl-
edge and participation of Mrs. Suratt.
Mr.. Aiken stated to the Court, that he
should not be prepared, until Wednesday,
to read the the argument in the case Of Mrs |
Sunatt The delay was attributable to the
voIuminous evidence previously to be exam
incd by him. ,@5-