The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1866-02-28
taking up arms against the United States until
properly relieved Of the obligation of this parole.
By command of Brig. Gen. D. B. FRY,
j. B. DOMAIN,
Major & A. A. G..

7dllahasss, Fla, May Is, 1866.
1.-the Undersigned, J. FL. Gee, Major of the
ltti Florida Infantry, do solemnly swear that l
will not bear arms against the United States OF
America, give any Information, or do any mil
itary dRty whatsoever until regularly exchanged
j. H. GEE, Maj. 18th Fla. Regt.
DESCRIPTION: #. 81 inches; hair, light;
eyes, grey complexion, light.
certify that the above parole was given by me
on the date above written ON the following condi-
tons: at s1
The above named person is allowed to return
to his home not to be disturbed by the military
authorities of the United States SO long as he OBJ
serves this parole and obeys the Laws which were
in force previous to the LIST of January, 1861,
where he resided
BY order of Brig. Gen, E. NJ. McCooK,
Capt and Prov. Marshal.
ANSWER By THE JUDGE ADVOCATE.
MAY 1T please THE COMMISSION =
The plea of the prisoner in bar of his trial by
this Court upon the charges presented, is to the
effect that, on the Goth day of April 1854 the Con-
fedarate forces cast of the Mississippi River sur
rendered to Mai. Gen. Sherman, commanding the
United States army in North Carolina, that by the
terms of such surrender, all officers and men OF
such forces were permitted to return to their
homes, there to remain undisturbed by the United
Sta;es authorities, SO long as they observed the
terms of said convention and the laws in force
whGre they might reside; and the prisoner claims
that he was an officer in such forces and entitled
to all the benefits of said Convention, which by
its terms, he further claims, he having accepted
and complied with them, bar any prosecution be-
fore this Court Tor any offense committed by him
previous to said Convention. These facts, as
stated by the defense, are admitted by the prose-
cutien, saving and excepting the fact, as claimed,
that the terms OF the said convention insured pro-
lection to any officer or man surrendered, for any
acts beyond those committed in fighting the bat
ties of the rebellion in strict conformity with the
laws and customs of war. 1t is claimed by the
prosecution that if there had been no convention,
the competency of this tribunal for the trial OF
the l,risonerupon the charges presented would be
beyond question. iVattel, Book Bird, Sec Ill
Martens, Book 9th, chap. 3rd, Sec 6.-Digest OF
the opinion of the Judge Advocate General, page
100 sec. ~ And it is further claimed by the pros
ecaiion, that the said convention was held and
terms made by he representative of the govern
ment under the general instructions loa the troops
in the field, by Leiber, promulgated in General
Orders, No. 100, series of 1868, and that therein
it is expressly laid down that soldier surrender
ing as a prisoner of war, shall not be protected
from the consequences of any act in violation of
the lws of war; and that, therefore, the faith and
homer of the government, by this Convention is
only pledged not to disturb officer or man, en-
titled to the benefit of its terms, for any act OF
hostility or war properly waged and that the
terms of said Convention offer no further protec
ten; and that therefore, the prisoner stands, in
the matter ofthese charges ofoffenses in violation
of the laws of war, entirely beyond any protec-
ton he could demand as an honorable soldier
And, further, the prosecution calls the atten-
ton of the Commission to the case of Wirz, re-
Gently tried at Washington, and claims that it is
direct parallel to this The prisoner in that
case was a member of the force surrendered under
the terms of this same Convention, and, conse-
quenty, the faith of the government was pledged
to him as fully as to Others who surrendered at
that time and further that upon the trial of the
said WirZ, the general amnesty proclamation and
the terms of this Convention were plead in bar,
and the Commission oyerruled the plea, on the
grounds hereinbefore stated; and the prOsecu-
tion cites that case as precedent
And, further, the prosecution submits to the
Commission the opinions Of the Attorney-Gen-
eral cited by the defence.
Here the Judge Advocate read the opinion of
the Attorney-G General, alluded to- the length of
which would occupy more space than we could
spare, and is omitted because it is matter of
record and has been published in the newspapers
throughout the country.
And the prosecution claims that the language
particularly cited by the defense, does not apply
in this case. The crimes there referred to, being
acts of treason, but not in violation of the laws
of war. And such crimes the prosecution does
not claim the prisoner could be called upon to
answer before this Court. And further, that in
this opinion the Attorney General holds this
language: "When thus peace shall have come,
in fact and in law, the persons now held in mill
tary custody, as prisoners OF war, and who may
not have been tried and convicted for offences
against the laws of war, should be transferred into
the custody OF the civil authorities of the proper
district to be tried for such high crimes and mis-
demeanors as may be alleged against them
This language is conclusive as to the Jurisdiction
of the Court in the case Of this person. now held
in the military custody, as prisoner OF war, and
charged with ofenses against the laws of war.
The strongest point of the defense is entirely
omitted; which is, that, whatever was the mean
ing of the clause in the terms of the Convention,
upon which the prisoner relied for safety, and
which he now pleads in bar, the language certain
~ was, that he could go to his home and there
remain undisturbed. And certainly the prison
er's acts show that he construed the words in
their broadcast sense and believed himself Sc
cure.
1t must be admitted that the prisoner has acted
in good faith towards the Government since his
parole, relying implicitly thereon for bis safety;
and while it is believed that there is no legal i'm
pedimeatto the trial of the prisoner by this Court
yet, perhaps, there are considerations affecting
this case which reach point of honor. If the
Court should so hold, then certainly the prayer
of the prisoner should be granted and the case
referred to the authorities at Washington.
Mr.. Holland, for the defence, made few re-
marks in support of the plea in bar and in reply
to the answer of the Judge Advocate he said
The Judge Advocate having denied some of the
facts which have been pleaded by the prisoner,
the prisoner now asks to be allowed to summon
witnesses to prove his plea and all the facts there
in set forth, and denies the right or authority of
the Judge Advocate to use his argument as evil
dence against the plea in BAR or that it should or
can be denied by other than the introduction of
witnesses-who, after being heard and all the ev-
idence introduced, argument is then heard on
both sides.
And further that the evidence introduced from
the newspaper does not show that Wirz ever
was paroled. This point we deny, and still denv,
and ask that the record may be produced from
the Bureau of Military Justice, at Washington:
and the accused here asks for such an order to is
sue to bring the record before this court to prove
our plea. And he further says, that the pleas and
charges in the Herald that were read, were not
the pleas used by the case in trial.
The Judge Advocate understood the defense TO
ask the Coart for an order to procnre authorities
or preeedents which they cite to sustain their
plea, and contended that it was the business of
the defense to procure these authorities
The defense cited the case of Admiral semmes.
now WHO'RE the authorities at Washington. as
parallel to that now before this Commission. in
which plea similar to that offered by the pris-
oner here, is now under adyisement by the Pres
ident, and up to the date OF the latest informa.
tion from Washington, was not decided
The Court was cleared for consideration. and
on the doors being again opened the following
decision of the point at issue, was read by the
Judge Advocate, as follows:
Il
the prisoner for the reasons following, to wit: