The Cleveland leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1865-1865, 1865-08-25

the members of having taken cognizance
of the case, and the prisoner having been
once arraigned and his life put in jeopardy,
and therefore the court could not proceed
to try the prisoner. s..f 3
In reply TO this, Colonel Ohipman said
he would only read the Official opinion
! from Judge Holt, Chief of the Buresu of
Military Justice, who is the law eXpound-
or SO far as the army is concerned. This
opinion is in substance: The party who
has been srrsigned should not be regarded
as having been tried until the government
has pursued to the conclusion and he hiss
been actually acquitted or convicted and
the Judgment of the court thereon an
nounced. There must be formal acquit-
tai or conviction.
The next question raised by the counsel
for defendant was that the prisoner should
not be held to trisi, but ought to be dis
charged, because Ospt. Noyes, officer of
staff of Gen. Wilson, had promised Capt.
Whz that if he should give certain in.
formation, which he did, to Gen. Wilson,
he should have safe conduct going and re-
turning to his home and the final question
was an agreement between Gems. Sherman
and johnson, sbsolved the prisoner from
the consequences of violation OF the
laws Of war.
In support of his motion that the pleas
were insufficient, and should be overruled,
Col. Chapman read an argument which he
had reduced to writing. If he argued
there was a violation of the compact be-
tween 8 staff officer and Wirz, the lstter's
remedy was against Gen. Wilson, and not
before this court. II, after defendant was
brought to Gen. Wilson, If was discovered
Wirz was guilty of great crimes, he would
have been auswersble to his superior for
letting him of. Gen. Wilson had no pow
ar TO sbsolve 8 prisoner from crime. A
promise of safe guard did not work q
pardon of offsnse.
The plea presents the esse of a police
officer Who saws come with me to q msgis-
trste and will see you are not injured.
The magistrate discovering the man is
guilty of crime, takes means for the trial
of the prisoner. It was not alleged that
Capt. Noyes acted on Instructions even of
Gen. Wilson. The cases were similar,
therefore the plea should be everruled,
and the Court must bear in mind that the
plea in bar does not g. sumo that there has
in this case been formal scquittsl or COL
NlCLlOU. lubIo nOH IcuhAub OulN Ouc
plea based on pardon, and according to
Archibald and Whardon's criminal law
pies must get in form the pardon granted
In the absence of this plea of council, it
was very certain that by the action Of the
Govern ment and the opinion Of the Atty
General, that neither the Amnesty Proc
lsmstion of the President, nor terms Of
surrender between Gen. Grant and Lee,
and Sherman and johnson, intended to
pardon those who had been guilty Of great
crimes.
A later proclamation of the President
showed that these cspiSulstions did not
pardon those coming within their terms
else why do they see men who had been
engaged IN rebellion every day besieging
the President and asking psr5on ? 1t
would be recollected that the Judge Of the
United States Court had charged the Jury
to inquire into the offsnses under the rs
bellion, and in the Criminal Court of this
District the Attorney General pronounced
the rebellion still existing. Suppose the
assassin of the late President had been s sol
dier, and after committing the act had es-
capped and returned to Johnston's army,
7a~a IL auPPoaad that tha tnrnaH of eaPitula-
tion would prevent the assassin from being
brought to trial2
Mr. RakaE snnnnsad- that nnnnrdin0 to
the universal custom OF law proceedings,
they we're required to say something in an
swsr to their Rdversaries. In the first
place. the prisoner was but humble ser
vsnt In the employment and under the
orders of officers of the socslled COnfeder-
acy. Distasteful as it might be, we must
look upon it as 6 fact, that there was civil
war for four long and distressful years.
The prisoner, he repeated, was 8 servant
and an instrument IN the hands of South
ern authorities. As such he had charge Of
our prisoners, because it was his duty. In
defending the prisoner he must do his duty.
The defendant was formally charged with
crimes that might never be proved as faos5.
II would be most inhumAn to take 1T for
Granted at the Threshold that he is guilty.
The charges are merely on paper. 1t was
the duty Of the court to investigate and see
whether they are true. 1t was alleged that
be as an individual starved Union
prisoners. His counsel deny that he did 1t
at all. But he wss where Union prisoners
were starved. Some came away and some
never returned. Would any member OF
the court say that one Lieutenant or MsJor
General in the United States army should
be held accountable for every outrage and
the indecency of every member, under the
laws of war, perhaps unknown to them
In some instances they might, but not Ter
all the atrocities charged against the prls-
oner. Ifone half of what isalleged against
the prisoner should be proven true he
shouid suffer- to the full extent of the law.
He wssinvited to come into the Union lines,
was promised should have safe conduct to
defendant. What justification could there
he for the violation of the usage of civiliz-
ed wsrfsre2 Where would they lind the
pledge of q commanding otticer violate
The Judge Advocate had said command
ing General can violate or set aside his
orders, but if any commanding Genersl
we'll deserving of his Stars should invite
an humble servant to come within MS INES,
and should then violate his promise of safe
conduct, and hold him as prisoner and tIy
him for murder, would it not be one OF the
most strocious violations of the rules Of
war and of good faith? Where did the
Judge Advocate get his authority Oer-
tsinIv not in books, or under authority oi
the limited States. This was one OF the
Doints of defense that the prisoner was
held vrongfully. The counsel would say
this with respect The prisoner was en-
ticed within our lines, and the pledge glVer
him of safe conduct was broken. Ther'
might he excuse for an officer breaking hi
pledge but this should inure to the bench
of accused
The learned Advocate compared thu
bringing out of the prisoner under tn
nromise that he should not be harmed int
our lines 10 a constable enticing party
from the magistrate whe holds him fer trlsl
Most assuredly the gentleman did not de
sign to bring this case to such 8 low ant
degrading condition. But the difficulty L
the first case is that the magistrate has
right to make the promise, and no rlght
break it. Second, the commanding 6en
eral has q right to make the promise, an
than, according to the laws OF God an
man, is required to respect it. as to IL
Dless of the nconstitutionality OF trying
man after once being put on trial, he woul
not argue the point. He could not tWic
be- nut in jeopardy of his life. If the eoul
sbould concur in his pleas he would B
grstifed. If not he would be content !
90 on with the case.
The court was cleared for dellberatloi
When the doors reopeRed it was announce
by the President that the court had owe
ruled the pleas, except as TO jurisdiction
. which is not yet argued.
, Me-. BAker-We plead the general issV
} and guilty of the charges and specific
! tiong