The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-05-17

have innocently held either side of it; and the
great body OIL them are neither more nor less
guilty than Mr., Davis himself II the decision
Is desired for their benefit, how can we expect
them to respect II when we arc ready TO avo W
beforehand that we would not yield our convic.
tons on this subject even TO the authority of the
Supreme Court? II we refuse to accept from the
court any thing but the echo of our own views
what better can we expect OF them? 1t is diff.
cult TO discover the necessity of submitting TO
further discussion question which has been
lrrepealably decided. In this view, therefore
the trial OF Mr.. Davis will be little better than a
judicial farce.
The other avowed purpose of the trial is "to
make treason odious.n But suppose Mr.. Davis
should be acquitted? This, we take it, is more
probable event than any other. Would an ac.
quittal render treason more odious than it is
alreadyY The grounds for expecting acuuittal
as more probable than conviction, are that the
trainers OF the Constitution intended TO make
CONVICTIONS for treason not easy, but difficult;
and that the laws passed by our fathers favor
this tendency. Nobody doubted that Burr was
traitor; but Burr escaped although the admin.
lstration of MIR. jefferson did its utmost TO secure
his conviction. Burr was indebted for his
escape entirely to the rulings of Chief Justice
Marshall, and not at all to the character of the
Jury. His followers and accomplices were men
collected from various places; they did not, like
the abettors OF the Rebellion, form compact
community whose members were nearly unani-
nous in sentiment. .... -.
The Constitutional provision, therefore
q
State and district where the scene of the indict.
ment is laid, did not favor him as it does Mr..
Davis. MIR. Davis must be tried before a Virgil
MIA jury, and the erection of West Virginia into
separate State is favorable to his acquittal, n
no lurymen can be drawn from thence. By ~
statute regulating trials tor treason, the accused
may peremptorily challenge thirty.fve Jurors
and as many more as he pleases for cause. All
who "have deliberately formed an opinion that
the party is guilty of the crime charged against
him are disqualified to serve as jurors"
The probabilities are, that such consist.
ent Union men as may be summoned as
lurymen will in this way be disqualified, and
the peremptoTy challenge OF thlrty-five besides
is likely to secure, in the State of Virginia, a
jury of which some members will be favorable
to Mr. Davis. But If, OF the whole twelve there
is even one that stands for his acquittal the Jury
will not agree, and disagreement is as good for
him as an acquittal, since he cannot be tried
again on the same charge. 1t is easy to see
therefore, that the chances are at least eleven to
one that Mr. Davis will not be convicted. This
PROBABILITY, we presume, is the true reason why
Chlet Justice Chase is unwilling TO try him, and
Is also the reason why the President has been so
persistent that he should in order that no iniu-
rlous party use may be made OF nOn-agreement
or acquittal.
This being the aspect of the case, the uues-
tion naturally recuIs, why should there be a
trial at all? Why not enter a noile proseQui and
let the prisoner go at large? We suppose Pre-
sident johnson entertalns no doubt that Mr.
Davis is guilty oil treason, and feels bound to do
all in his power to secure hisiconvctiyn. He
reasonably prefers that the responsibility tor
his escape shall rest on the court and Jury,
rather than on himself. The President could
hardly commit greater political mistake than
TO direct notte pTosequi. Whether the trial
results in MIR. Dayis' release or his conviction it
Is equally incumbent on the President to see
that he has "a speedy trial." His release from
custody by a trial relieves the President from
all responsibility; and if the trial is presided
over by the radical Chief Justice, the result
will not be open to party cavl.