Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1865-07-06
Reverdy JohnsOn's Argument.
(FrOm the New York World }

The masterly argument Of Hoo. IReverdy
johnson against the Jurisdiction OF the mill
tary commission sitting at Washington for
the trial OF the conspirrators, is much longer
than there would have been any necessity for,
had its object beeen to convince fair minds
coming to the subject without prejudice. But
this commission has prejudged the case il
has taken its ground. and means to hold it in
defiance Of argument; and Mr. johnson
therefore found a necessity not merely for
disproving the jurisdiction Of the commission,
but for tracking out and sweeping away every
pretext on which this illegal court seeks 10
rest its claims He has done his work eiiec.
tuslly no person who reads his argument will
have any respect for the action OF this strange
tribunal
Mr.. johnson begins by showing that it ls
not within the competency Of any depart
ment of the government-not even Of Con-
gress--to invest such a court with Jurisdiction
over such a case The obstacle lies in that
amendment Of the constitution which de
clares that mo person shall be held to an
swer for a capital or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on presentment or indictment
Of grand Jury EXCEPT in cases arising in the
| land or nduai forces, or in the militia Uhen
in dotire service in time of toar or public
danger" The constitution empowers Con-
gress ito make rules for the government and
regulation of the land and naval forces" aud
it is in the exercise Of this power that militia
ry courts ars established by Congress for the
trial Of persons subject to the rules and artic-
les of war But not even Congress can in.
vest military tribunals with the Jurisdiction
of offenses not arising in the land or naval
forces. To what purpose has the constitution
interdcted particular modes OF trial, If officers
of the government may follow their own dis
crstion precisely as if no such prohibition eX-
isted2
But even waving this argument-concu-
slve in itself-iounded on the express Ian
guage of the constitution, the pretended ju.
risdiction Of this military commission is sull
indefensible court martial is a tribunal
created by Congress. 1t has no Jurisdiction
or authority except such as Congress has
seen fit to bestow upon it. But no law of
Congress can be cited couferring on any mil.
itary tribunal Jurisdiction over the crime of
murder, when committed by persons not con.
nected with the army, navy or militia in sctu.
al service, and amenable to the civil tribunals
of the country. If there is any such law, let
it be produced There is none and q mere
order or proclama alton Of the President weighs
law; for the plain reason that the constitu.
tion withholds from the President the power
to prescribe or enlarge the jurisdiction Of
miitsry tribunals.
1 The rules which prevail in civil courts for
trial of offenses, are founded on reason and
justice, and confirmed by the experience ol
ages The genius of our constitution does
not permit them to be, in any case. set aside
without the most absolute necessity; and the
constitution does not allow even Congress to
Judge in what case this necessity exists. The
constitution itself decided that regular indict-
ments and jury tial shall in all cases prevail
except in cases arising in the naval and mil
itary service. The reason of this exception
is, that it is necessary for the maintenance ot
discipline But will anybody pretend that
the trial Of these conspirators by civil court
would in any way interfere with discipline in
the armyP Such q pretence is the height Of
absurdity.
But even if the trial of Mrs Surratt, and
the otbers by a civil court was deemed incon-
sistent with the maintenance Of discipline in
the army, it is not for military officers, nor
even for the President, to decide that point
but for Congress alone. 1t is only Congress
that can give authority to hold a military
court at all {; it is only Congress that can de-
fine their jurisdiction. And in point OF fact,
Congress has conferred no such jurisdiction
on any military court as is claimed by the
one now in session.
When Mr.. Johnson had demonstrated these
positions with convincing clesrness, he might
have stopped but as he ioresaw that expedi-
ency might be dragged in when authority
failed, he has proved, from the established
principles of Jurisprudence, from the reason
Of the thing, from numerous British prece-
dents in similar cases, from the testimony Of
eminent historians, and from recent charges
ofrespected American judges, that the as
sumption Of such jurisdiction is as contrary to
the enlightened sense of the most competent
judges, as it is repugnant to the constitution
and unauthorized by an act of Congress. This
learned and exhaustive argument will con-
vince all except those who willfully shut their
eyes against evidence. The courtesy OF ts
tone is only excelled by the invincible
cegenoy Of its reasoning.