Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-09-20

ence.
THE OPINION oP JUDGE GooDPAsTURE.
The cause would have to be strong indeed
where this Court would relieve a party on a
writ of habeds corpus who is indicted, upon a
question of fact. This Court has studiousIy
avoided all questions growing out of the re-
cent rebellion, hoping that these occurrences
might be buried in the waters of Lethe, and
that the good sense of the people would die
tate to them that they should forget all acts
which were the offspring of the passions of
the hour, and resolve to amend the past by
a strict adherence to the principles of JUS
tice, truth, and patriotism in the future.
There are many questions raised by coun-
sci to which the Court would be 10th to give
its assent. This Court could not feel more
sensibly than it does that the worst of male
factors is he who seeks to subvert the prin-
ciples Of the Constitution of the United
States. No where in ancient or modern
times have the organic principles of govern
ment secured 30 much happiness to the mass
of the people as has those Of the Govern
ment of the United States. No people owe
so much to their government as do this
people. He who in his heart commits
treason against such government and such
Constitution is certainly the worst of
malefactors. There is but one question that
this Court is called upon to decide, that is:
Have the Courts of the State Jurisdiction Of
the crime OF treason against the United
States? The charge in the first count of the
indictment is, that the defendants were guilty
of leyying war against the State of Ten
nessee. The other counts are for assisting
in levying war against the State. We pre-
sumo it will not be controYerted by any one
of Judicial pretensions, that leyying war
against State is not at the same time levy
ing war against the General Government.
If the Court is correct in this position, il
will not be denied that the commission of
treason by levying war against State is the
commission of treason against the United
States. We do not deem it necessary to
argue a question of law which is so clearly
manifest to every legal mind. Assuming,
then, that levying war against a State is
levying war against the United States, we
are content with collation. of the authori-
ties upon the power of State tribunal to
punish the crime of treason against the Gen
eral Government. Congress reserves to it.
self the exclusive jurisdiction of all ofenses
against the Uuited States in the act organ
izing its judicial system. See Act, LIST Con-
gress, LIST Session, Chap. 20, Sec. Ii.
Mr.. STORY in his commentaries upon the |
Constitution, says that the power to punish |
treason against the United States, is exclu- |
sively in Congress, and that the trial of the |
ofiense belongs exclusively to the tribunals |
appointed by that power. See STORY on the |
Con-, Vol. = Sec =. In the case of the |
people of New York against Lynch 18th, |
JoHNsoN's reports, page 553, the Court says /
that "we think the Jurisdiction of the State |
Courts does not extend to the offense of /
treason against the United States. The ju- |
1icial power of the United States extends to
all cases arising under the Constitution and
laws Of the United States" 1t can make no
difference that the crime charged amounts to
reason against the State. A party can be
placed but once in jeopardy for the same Of
ense under our Constitution, and the supe-
nor jurisdiction must prevail
We are, therefore, constrained to release the
from answering the charge, upon
he ground that State Courts have no juris-
fiction Of the offense of treason against the
United States
w. w. GooDPAsTURE.
Judge 9th Circuit.