Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1866-07-11
Por the Chronicle.
GEN. GARFIELD'S RECORD.

lIdCllNe cIOIls- IL ne ndu Luo pOhcf II
would reduce the General to his own il
significant level. He is not content
follow Mr.. Garfield, through his Congrei
siOnal record, giving it fair manly view
but travelling outside that, goes into hi
practice as a lawyer Now the friends G
Garfield object not, nay rather covet, tha
his public acts, as our Representative, b
fully and impartially canvassed. w
shrink not from such investigation; onl
insist that it be fairly done. We despist
however, the revilings and continuation
slanders. heaped upon Gen. Garfield, b.
your star correspondent. We understand
who he is his long ear-marks are dis
tinctly visible, and his attempt to con
ceal his yearnings for seat in Congress
Is transparent enough.
All the capital that can be made agains
Garfield, by reference to his professional
business, will amount to but little, wheT
the truth shall be made known. 1t is al
unfair, unmanly reference, and no righ
minded man would fetch it up against
him. This star man in your last ISSUE
says the Generals friends admit that hi
defence of the Indiana Conspirators wa
a mistake. Now sir, we deny that Gen
Garfield defended the Indiana conspira
tors. He appeared in the U. S. Court al
Washington to argue a Constitutions
question, with which the question of the
guilt or innocence of the conspiratori
had nothing more to do, than whether
the moon is made of green cheese. The
question of their guilt was not before the
Court. 1t was not mooted at all, anG
your star man knows it. How then can
he say Garfield defended the Indiana con
spirators? The question was one of juris-
diction entirely, and it is comforting tc
know that every point made in the case
by Garfield, was sustained by the Supreme
Court of the United States, Chief Justice
Chase on the bench and delivering the
opinion of the Court And it is a well
known fact that Gov. Morton and the
friends in Indiana, were desirous that
the Court should decide this question oI
jurisdiction. Will the Union loving peo
pie Of the 10Th district find fault with
their member, when their favorite, Judge
Chase, is with him, and endorsing his &C
ton? We trow not. Envy moves youl
star man in this behalf.
Gen. Garfield is a law abiding citizen
he goes in for men being tried by legal
with proper Jurisdiction The
case is like this: Suppose one of our
citizens murder another, would the rea-
der be content to see the murderer arres
ted, taken before Justice Abel, tried, con
demned, sentenced and hung, merely
upon the judgment of Justice of the
Peace? Not for a moment would such
an idea be tolerated. All men would
say give him a trial, such as the law al
lows him. Let him be tried by jury in
the Common Pleas Court-so in the Indi
ana case. The Supreme Court of the y
S. says the conspirators were not tried in
the proper Court so Garfield argued,
and he is now viliied by those seeking
his place. Last week we silenced the
battery, we think, so that
it will, probably, not trouble US in the
future. We propose now, by publishing
the following from the Portage Demo
crat to spike the Indiana battery. Rea
der examine this article and pity the poor
star man who whines for place and pay
so vindictively. NJ.
The SIanderers.
''The calumniators of Gen. Garfield ARE
now abusing him because he has the
temerity to practice law in the Supreme
Court of the United States. They say
he has not been practising attorney in
the lower Courts, and hence there is an
in his bestowing his services
in the highest court of the Nation. Was
ever anything more puerile and weak?
But then he was engaged, say they, to
defend the Indiana conspirators, and this
they allege against his loyalty. But his
revilers misrepresent the case. The ques-
ton of the innocence or guilt of the
prisoners was not the question at issue,
it was purely a question of jurisdiction
of constitutional law-and the Supreme
Court of the United States, by its decis
ion, sustained the views and positions oi
Gen. Garfield, in its decision of the case.
Are the Judges of the Supreme Court
therefore, amenable to censure, to the
charge of disloyalty, to the insinuatioI
of being sTayed by improper influences
1t is nothing but spiteful, personal ma
lignity that makes or insinuates such
charges against advocates and judges.
Milligan, Bowles and Horsey, were ar
rested in Indiana, by order of the Majol
General commanding the district, for con
spiracy against the Government of the
United States, and were placed on triaI
before Military Commission, were con
victed and sentenced to be hung. Presi.
dent Lincoln commuted the sentence to
imprisonment in the Ohio Penitentiary
The question before the Supreme Court
was, had the Military Commission juris
diction legally to try and sentence these
men Upon this question, the whole
case before the supreme court turned
Gen. Garfield in the opening of his argu
ment said:
''I desire to say in the outset that the
questions now before this court have re
lation only to constitutional law, and
neither involve the guilt or innocence ot
the relators, nor the motives and patriot
ism of the officers who tried and senten-
ced them.
l trust l need not say in this presence
that in my estimation nothing in the cal
endar of infamy can be more abhorrenI
than the crimes with which the relators
were charged; nothing that more fully
deserves the swift vengence of the law
and the execration of mankind. But the
questions before Your Honors are not per
sonal. They reach those deep founda
tons of law on which the Republic i.
built; and in their proper settlement are
involved the highest interests of every
citizen"
Gen. Garfield proceeded with an argu
ment of unsurpassed power and ability,
showing exhaustive research, and great
legal discrimination. 1t is impossible, IL
these columns to give his argument, ol
even extensive extracts. The argument
and citation of authorities might be read
with profit by lawyers, especially those
interested in the discussion of constitu
tional questions.
We give the conclusion of Gen. Gar
fields argument, which was in these
words:
There was one point suggested rather
than insisted upon by the opposing coun
sci, which it requires but little more thar
a statement to answer. On page Is o
their brief, the learned gentlemen say
that if the military tribunal had no ju
risdiction, the petitioners may be held al
prisoners captured in war, and handed
over by the military to the civil authori
ties, to be tried for their crimes undel
the acts of Congress, and before the Courts
of the United States.
The answer to this is that the petition
ers were never enlisted, commissioned, o.
mustered in the service of the confede
racy; nor had they been within the rebe
lines, or within any theatre of actiYt