Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1866-07-25

I The law of March 3, 1868, before re-
ferred to, authorized the President, du-
ring the rebellion, whenever in his judg-
ment the public safety should require it,
to suspend the privilege of the writ of
| ha5cas corpus in the United States, or any
part thereof, and order the arrest of any
person whom he might believe dangerous
to the safety of the Government, but
this act gave no authority to try the per
son so arrested, by any military tribunal,
and the Secretary of State and Secretary
of War were directed to furnish the
Judges of the United States Court, a list
of the names of all persons held as pris-
oners by authority of the President, or
either of said Secretaries, except prisoners
Of ,gar, for trial in their proper districts
wherein the administration of the laws
continued 'unimpaired, and in case they
were not indicted the prisoners were TO
be discharged.
The questions before the United States
Court were not whether these parties were
guilty of the crimes with which they had
been charged, but whether the commits
sion could legally try them. Gen. Gar
field said in his argument. 81 desire to
say in the outset, that the questions now
before this Court have relation only to
Constitutional La0, and neither involves
the guilt or i,lnOeenes of the relators, nor
the motives and patriotism of the officers
who tried and sentenced them"
"In my estimation nothing in the cal
lender of infamy can be more abhorrent
than the crimes with which the relators
were charged, nothing that more fully
deserves the swift vengeance of the laws,
and the execration of mankind" and
further, 1--WE do not ask that they shall
be shielded from any LaWfuI punishment,
but that they shall not be unLaWfllLy pun
ished, as they now are, by the sentence
of a tribunal which had no jurisdiction
over either their persons or the subject
matter of the charges"
According to the Constitution of the
United States above referred to, and the
laws of Congress, these persons should
have been handed over to the Federal
Courts for trial, and the laws were ample
to punish them. This is all that General
Garfield asked-not for their acquittal-
but that they should be legally tried and
punished under the laws of Congress, en-
acted during the rebellion to meet just
such cases.
sd. s." says ''if legal talent was requi-
red" "why were not Wade or Sherman
or Delano or that staunch soldier-lawyer
Schenck, applied to? These men are
lawyers"
If it is true, as is here insinuated, that
Gen. Garfield had no reputation or talent
as lawyer, and yet argued this case in
opposition to Gen. Benz. F. Butler, who
is acknowledged to be one of the abLeSt
lawyers in the country, and the decision
in the United States Court, in full bench,
announced by Chief Justice Chase, sus-
tanned every point that Gen. Garfield
argued before them, then it must follow
that the military commission that tried
these men, was clearly illegal and without
authority, or the Supreme Court of the
United States are in inereuSabLe error.
1t is the proud boast of the citizens of
the United States, that every person
charged with crime shall have fair i'm
partial and legal trial under the laws in
force at the time, when the crime was
alleged to have been committed, no mat
ter what his position or character may
be. This is all that Gen. Garfield asked
for these men. Is there any thing disloy-
al or reasonable in this? Is there man
in the 10Th District who would demand
less for the meanest criminal of the land?
Let US uphold the Constitution and the
laws when the Courts open, and the laws
are ample both fol punishment and pro-
lection. NJ