The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1865-07-18
Trial of Champ Ferguson.


FIFTH DAY.
The Commission convened ct the usu,
hour. All the members present, exeer
Capt. Thomas II Osborn, who has been mus
tered out Of the service since the last ses
sion, by reason Of his time Of enlistnen
having expired.
Counsel for the defence now hled thsi
plea to the jurisdiction Of the court, whiel
is the usual plea in such cases-namely
chat mi iltry commissions are not know
70 our system Of jurisprudence.
The Judge Advocate remarked that h,
considered this question res adjudicata; be
ades, the objoctioa should be made TO In
authority ordering the trial. He also state.
further that this practice Of introducing al
additional plea, and asking that Il may b.
considered before the questions sIready be
fore the court are decided, lie wholly irregu.
lar, and that be should hereafter insist that
all questions be decided in the order il
which they are presented.
At Ibis point Judge Guild was permitted
70 read written argument in favor Of sus.
tanning al the pleas fled, including the last
which goes directly toihe Jurisdiction Of the
court.
This argument is entirely too lengthy for
us to publish. That portion which r.istes
10 the special pleas heretofore mentioned
has already appeared in substance in ur
columnsi the remaining PORTION upon the
question Of jurisdiction is necessarily very
SINH ar to that Of Reverdy johnson, in the
conspiracy trial It is throughout oredita-
bic to Judge G's legal ability and prof .ssion-
al eou-tesy.
In reply, the Judge Advocate said that he
had already answered the arguments rsla-
ting 70 tbetw pleas in bar, and as to the CT
gumeHt on the question Of Jurisdiction, he
did not consider itsn improvement upon
those he had already read in the reports Of
numerous military trials.
The court then read tho following opinion,
overrulipg al the pleas:
OPINION.
The FIRST part Of the plea in bar filed by
defendants counselis based upon the ground
that the prisoner had been an officer in the
service Of the so-called Confederate States,
and Sursendcrcd on condition Of parole,
therefore not subject to prosecution for the
offences alleged against hun in the charges
aud specifications. But il Is not stated in the
plea that The prisoner wss himself in fact
purolcd-it only 81 tes that the officers and
men under hil command were paroled, aud
sent 10 their hrmes and that the prisoner
was permitted togo TO his home, there 10 re-
main until Col. Blackburn, 10 whom he had
surrendered, could confer with the General
commanding in reference 10 The accused.
Il further appears that when Gel. Biac kburn
had % conlerred with the General com
manding, he sent FOR the defendant nnd
placed him under arrest; hence this pari of
the plea shows 10 parole snd affords the
prisoner no protection.
The second part Of tho pies avers that the
priaoner surrendered 10 Col. Blackburn on
the terms Of an Order Of Major General
Thomas 10 Major General Rousseau. dated
May isi, 1865, requiring the latter officer 70
send a summons under dag Of truce 10 all
aud every band Of armed men in his viciu-
iiy % which be might know Of, who were
operating NEARER 10 his than any other com
mand, and call ufoa them to surrender 10
him or TO any officer he might name Tor that
purpose, upon the same terms as Gen. Lee
surrendered to Grant. Also notifying them
that If they disregarded the summons and
continued acts Of hostility they would
thereafter be regarded as outlaws, and be
proceeded against, pursued, and when cap
tured treated as outlaws.
The plea AYERS that the prisoner surrepd-
cred, but il does not aver that he was paroled
as the cartel between Grant and Lee re
quired. Why the General commanding al
lowed al the officers and ;nen under Forru-
sons command to be parolcd. aad refused to
parole him. is rol matter Tor this court 10
Sejudica,e
i is sufficient for the purposes Of this csse
for this cauri 10 kaow thst the General com
manding did except this prisoner frem The
cartel, and that he had authority for doing
90.
General Order Ne. lOe, dated, War Depart-
mrnt Adiu1ant Generals Office. Washing
ton D. G, April 2ith, Isss, sec. VI, par.
lSs, reads as follows;
No prisoner Of war can be forced by the
hostile government 20 parole hins.if ona
no government Is % iggd 10 parole prisoner
Of war, or 70 parole All captured officers. III
Il parole say.
Here as the piedging Of thc parole IS an in
viduai act. 90 is pafoling on he other hand
IN hetof choice on the part Of the belligsr
ent
7" Is urged in argument the defendant
''0u'e' mat evea the most important mat
'e'' are acted upon by staff officers without
consulting Their General. aaa that the order
70 W Snaihp Ferguson, is not the order 81
General Thomas, but that Of l,is I'D. \,
vocaie. This is simply an .,aput.,io, -.
the integrity Of high minded ana -
ofhoers, which rofutes itself ana -.
no weight or bearing wha .soerer in 49,.
But, again This court does MOI -.
that the cartel between Generals Or, -,
Lee bars proceedings, agAinss even a rsg,l..
y Paroled officer or soldier, for orimis,I !,
lsnees' or Tor acts committed ia violation -
'Aees'ablished laws o. war. And such -.
ne acts here charged against the prison,-
see me court overrulos the plss in bar.
This oourt does not consider itself 50 n,
bound BY mere law .fornes q procedure a.
20 defeat The herring Of this case on i,s
rGerits.
ol' when ihe court conesto hear fls a.,
oay on the pert Of the defense ne =
h.s,-i may odduoo evidence as 20 apv ps,oI.
49,. .,'-' 10 have had extended 20 "a, !,
.+ ne reviewing authority al the pron.y
The plea 70 The jurisdic,io, o, ,...-.
,,o .a s0' the plea vii = ms 80 eo.I'
o. The record 50 TIA, The seou.s = naoI part
the bsnoa. Of ii before he .-, maj. may h'v'
thority. reviewing au-
.LA AAffESs PASSED urox ny 90,
Aa 70 the paper addresse3 -, = o0eht'
SON. feAs before ths court On 49, 49,, : 0iiI :
Published IN the city papers Of i -. , and
u.s.. TIE eourt has only to say, thai !, i''h
aIse. reflection on The integrity " :, Is a
members 0fths court Is men, and tbs,r ;, -, me