The Potter journal. [volume] (Coudersport, Pa.) 1857-1872, 1866-01-30
JEFF. DAVIS.

sage OF Enc PRESIDENT TO the Senate, In an-
swer tointerrcgatories as to the disposition
to be made of JEFF. Davis, and embodles
the reasons which have controlled the ac-
tion of the administration on this subject.
To the President:
SIR 81 have the honor to acknowl-
edge the receipt from you of copy of the
resolution of the Senate OF the United
States, of date the 21st of December, 1865
In that resolution the Senate respectfully
request to be informed on what charges
and for what reason Jefferson Davis is
still held in confinement, and why be has
not been put upon trial. zs r.34-
When the war was at Its crisis Jeffer
son Davis, the commander-in chief of the
army of the insurgents, was taken pris-
oner, with other prominent rebels, by the
military forces of the United States. 1t
was the duty of the military SO to take
them They have been heretofore, and
are yet held as prisoners of war. Though
active hostilitles have ceased, state of
war still exists in the territory in rebel
lion. Until peace shall come in fact, and
in law, they can rightfully be held as
prisoners of war. $3.50
l have ever thought that trials for trea-
son cannot be held before a military tri-
bunal The civil courts have alone juris.
diction of that crime. The question then
rises, where aud when must the trials
thereof be held? In that clause of the
Constitution mentioned in the resolution
of the Senate, it is plainly written that
they must be held in the State or district
wherein the crime shall have been COM
mitted. know that many persons of
learning and ability entertain the opinion
that the commander in chief Of the rebel
armies should be regarded as construct
lively present with all the insurgents who
prosecuted hostilities, and made raids
upon the northern and southern borders
of the loyal States. This doctrine of con.
structive presence, carried out to its log
lcal consequences, would make all who
had been connected with the rebel armies
liable to trial in any State and district
into which any portion of these armies
had made the slightest incursIon. Not
being persuaded of the correctness of that
opinion, but regarding the doctrine men
.:---l - &c Io-htf,i Notwithstanding.
have thought it not proper to advise you
to cause criminal proceedings to be lnsti-
tutcd against Jefferson Davis or any other
insurgeut in the states or districts in
which they were not actually present
during the prosecution of hostilities.
Some prominent rebels were personally
present at the invasion of Maryland and
Pennsylvania, but all or nearly all of them
received military paroles upon the surren-
der of the rebel armies. Whilst thiak
that those paroles are not an ultimate pro.
lection for prosecutions for high treason,
[ have thought that it would be viola
ton of the paroles to prosecute these per-
sons for crimes before the political power
of the Government has proclaimed that
the rebellion has been suppressed,
1t follows, from what | have said, that
1 am of the opinion that Jefferson Davis
and others of the insurgents ought to be
tried in some one of the States or districts
in which they in person especially COM
mitted crimes with which they may be
charged Though active hostilities and
fragrant war nave not for some time ex-
listed between the United States aud the
insurgents, peaceful relations between the
Government and the People in the States
and districts in rebellion have not yet
been fully restored. None of the j Justices
of the Supreme Court have held circuit
courts in these States and districts since
actual hostilities ceased. When the courts
are open, and all laws can be peacefully
administered and enforced in those States
whose people rebelled against the Gov
ernment, when thus peace shall have
come in fact and in law, the persons now
held in military custody as prisoners of
war, and who may not have been tried
aud convicted for offences against the
laws of war, should be transferred 10 the
custody of the civil authorities of the
proper districts to be tried for such high
crimes aud misdemeanors as may be al
legged against them.
| think it is the plain duty of the Pres
ident to cause criminal prosecutions to be
Instituted before the proper tribunals, and
at all proper times, against some of those
who were instrumental in inaugurating
aud most conspicuous in conducting the
late bostii.ies. I should regard it as a
direful calamity, if many whom the sword
has spared, the law should spare also
but would deem it a more direful ca
lamity still if the Executive, in perform
ing his constitutional duty of bringing
these PERSONS before the bar of justice to
answer for their crimes, should violate the
plain meaning of the Constitution or in
fringe in the least particular the living
spirit Of that instrument.