, 1866-04-26
Is not defined BY tho Constitution. though II

kA@ 40AAAt4a AuA eInf1lO4 luc h1n5 hA0 NAV GAM
suspend the ha1cds corrus. In the event Of its
occurrence. Could anything less than the
most stnpcndons crime authorize the Govern
mcnt thus to call on the people for the last
drop Of Their blood aud the last remnant Of
their lfhcrtfcs9 Nor is rebellion defined as a
crime by any statutc, nor Is the mode OF It's
trial OF punishment. provided, Yet It is
recognized as crime. For by tue
act Of lt9S, under which President Lincoln
issued his call for - 600 militia, it is provided
that Whenever an insurrcction in nuy State
ehnIl become too powerful 10 bc suppressed by
the ordinary process OF the courts md mar
shals, he may call upon the militia ol other
States TO suppress II. Hence We have the
clear fact that both the Constitution and the
statutes define the crime Of treason and pro-
vide for lis mode Of punishment, and that
they recognize the crime Of rebellion as one TO
be suppressed by military force, but nowhere
especially provided for Its mode Of punish
ment. Hence the crime Of rebellion cannot
be punished in court ol law. No in-
dlctnent can be drawn for it, because no
statute defines it, Tho clear inference Is that
those who framed the Constitution and
statutes relative to treason, expected
rebellion 10 BE- tried and punished Ill some
other way. How las rebellion ever
been tiled and punished. Never in single
instance before jury. Always by military
tribunal. The English Government, whozc
laws for the trial aud punishment OF treason
are the same as ours, has, within few years.
suppressed two rcbelliops-onc real one in
1ndiana-one supposed one in Jomaica. Both
Of these were suppressed with circumstances
OF great cruelty, which had no necessary cou-
nection with the mode Of trial. But none Of
the rebels were tried by jury-all By military
tribunals. Yet the very clauses Of our Con-
etitution which define treason, arc
but The re-en1ctmcnt Of British
statutes running III the same words. aud
their law Is the same rs ours on
the sul,irct. 1t Is Us necessary to levy war on
The Government there us here to constitute
treason. Yet they have never been troubled
with the strange delusions that rebel chief
tains were entitled 10 jury trial. There
were three reasons for this. As matter Of
lncrc precedent they had never been so tried.
Az matter Of law there was no provision tor
SO trying them. As matter Of fact, such a
trial would always be 4 farce. For rcbrl-
lion always arrays the whole people oi .
country OIL one side or the other OF tue stru.-
gle 10 preserve the Government. II il sue
cccds, the Government becomes the criminal,
and, as IN the case Of Charles l. aud Louis
XyI., its executive head is generally hung Us
arcbcl, and The leaders Of the rebellion be.
come the Government. Il. it fails, the people
are made up in part OF those who were parties
TO the crime and for that reason incapacitat-
cd 10 sit as jurors in the trial Of their chicf,
and the entire people having tukcn sides in
the fight have formed opinions as to his guilt
aAd are therefore incapacitatcd by law to sit
ssjurors. These are Inherent. perpetual rca-
sons why no rebel clief in auy country eau
ever be fairly tried by a jury.
Can court oi law know anything OF crime
! like rebellion which is not defined by any
statIte, u''d must first be sublucd by mill
tary force before impartial history attaches
| 10 it the stain OF moral turpitudc9 Can q
judge pass upon an act which sufficient
number Of artillery and infantry
would have converted into revolutions Or
can jury properly he called uron to runisha
woull-he revolutionist Oh grounds of politi
cal prudence and State necessity? All thest
questions point to the reason why the Gramcs:
OF our Constitution and statutes recognized
1cbelinn Us crime to be suppressed hy tts
military power, but did not provide how i,
should be punished. They intended to lcavt
its punishment TO the same military powc;
to which they contide1 its suppression. In
deed the punishment is rart of its supprcs
sion, aud no rebellion Is properly suppressed
until il. leaders have been properly punished
Jctl. Dasfs' rebellion was suppressed by mill
iary force, and he was captured and is still
held by military force. His crime, like tha
OF 4 spy, or Of an officer who disobcys order
in face Of the enemy, Is q military crime
whose historic tnrIitnde would depend upot
its failure or success. Had he succeeded, OF
the States rights theory he wonld have hun.
Abraham lincoln for making WIT on the Con
stitulion, as the Davis party construed it
The reasons for his punishment are 1nilitar,
ind political in their character For al
these reasons he should be tried by a nilitnr,
parties, the rebels who justify him and or
parties to lis crime, and the Uniou tucn. nl
Of whvm have formed infle1,blc opinions {
his guilt. Hence not single impartial juro
can be selected in the country nccoslin. I
Tic rules OF law for selecting jurors. III
tsial before jury Is more than difficulty
it Is Iii impossibility. Were JEFF. Davi
u rebel against the posse eon4mitatus Of
county, and had The whole people Of Ill
comfy been engaged in either surprcssue Il
sustaining the rebellion, no court would tr
lin in that county, but would remove u,
place Of trial. We cannot remove thc plue
OF trial out Of the country, and the only po
siblc mode Of trial is before military cour
Were he brought before Federal cou1
md jury, there wonId bc no question OF Ia
: OF TACT for them TO decide. The fact that L
made war Oh the United States is part of u
worlds history, which all courts have takt
, judicial Lotice Of without proof. Whether
had the right 10 do it depends on thc rigl
of d State IL sscc1c, and that Is not guest,
on which any court can hear areu,ne,
II, for instance, n United States Court
Virginia should dctide TINT S.ate had u
. right IN seccdc, Virginia having seeded, Il
!. court itself would have no Jurisdiction.
JEFF. Davis, If tried before u Statutory Co1
= and jury, must he tried i'll Southern Sta'
:. where nN his acts Of rebellion wcrr cotu,1,
: ted, the only plea OH whicl, he could just
= himself in law-viz: the right of State
= scccae-would oust the court Of jurisdct1t
:, We rciteratc onr conviction. therefore, Il
tic law and the facts compel us to Try J,
- Davis, il at all, before military tribuu
,S y, Aud who believes that such men as Ora
~ Sherman, Hooker, Logan. Thomns, shcril:
" aud their colnpecrs, are not better qualified
- every requisite Of reason aud humanity
~ Try him, than twelve Virginia beors, "
:" would swcar to the lie that .hey had ior,1
~ no opinion ou his case!