The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1865-07-19

when they make this avernent by
way of argument, owe it to them
selves and to their country to show
how the President could otherwise
lawfully and efficiently discharge the
duty enjoined upon him, BY his oath
to protect, preserve, and defend the
Constitution Of the United States, and
Ito take care that the laws be faith
fully executed.
This is shallow and puerile Who
is SO great q simpleton as not toknow
that these. accomplices ID assassina.
ton could just as easily be tried BY 8
civil court in the District Of Column
bia as b, . military commission Il
has been decided that Davis, the arch
|conspirator, is to be So tried and if
the civil courts are competent to try
a traitor, why not q murderer ? But
let us hear more Of this precious
twaddle:
The civil courts, say the counsel,
are open in the district. answer.
/ they are closed throughout half the
republic, and were only open in this
district on the day Of this confedera-
ton and conspiracy, on the day Of
the traitorous assassination Of your
President, and are only open az this
hour by force of the bayonet. Does
any man suppose that if the military
forces which garrison the intrench,
ments Of your capital, City thousand
strong, were,sall withdrawn, the rebel
bands who this day infest The noun
tain passes in your vicinity would al
low this court, or any court, to re-
main open in this DESTRUCTION the trial
Of these, their confederates, or would
permit your executive officers to dis.
charge the trust committed to them,
for twenty-four hours?
The cause that crutches itself ON
such transparent nonsense as this,
must be weak indeed. The argument
proves, if i proves anything, not
only that Davis cannot possibly be
tried by q civil court. but that there
are, at present, no civil courts in the
District! For if a civil court can sit
and discharge its functions in any
sort Of trial, it can. under the same
protection, equally try the accompli-
'ces in a murder. If Washington is
in such imminent danger as Mr.. Blng-
hams fervid Imagination depicts, the
military authority has committed a
great imprudence in ordering the
forts to be dismantled, which it did
some days ago. But let us hear this
profound Judge Bingham again:
would be glad to know by what
law the President, by a military force,
acting only upon his military orders,
istjustltied in pursuing, arresting, and
killing one Of these conspirators, and
is condemned for arrcsting in like
manner, and by his order subjecting
to trial, according To the laws Of war,
any or all Of the other parties to this
same damnable conspiracy and crime,
by military tribunal Of justice.
That is to say, if aman gives chase
to a murderer, and, having. brought
him to bay, kills him in self.defense,
why, does not that fact commission
him as a Judge to try that murderer's
accomplices? Chief-Justice Marshall
was not quite SO profound. He de-
clared from the bench "a Cranch,
1867, that :" it would be extremely
dangerous to say, that because the
prisoners were apprehended, not by a
civil magistrate, bnt by the military
power, there could be given by law a
fright to try the persons so seized in
any place which the general might
select, and to which he might direct
them to be carried" Chief-Justice
Marshall held that even Congress
could not interfere to prevent con-
stitutional trial. much less military
discretion and the fact Of military
arrest.
By logical shortcut worthy Sir
Hudibras, Mr.. Bingham argues that
the very existence Of this military
COURTS a conclusive and allssuficing
proof Of its jurisdiction ! Do but
listen to this Incompatible fetch:
So with the question presented in
this remarkable argument for the. de-
Tense !: before this court can enter
upon the inquiry of the want of au-
thority il the President to constitute
them q court, they must take for
granted and decide the very pointsih