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

These are all the authorities that / hav
been able to find that bear, either Direct
or indirectly, upon the point; but supports
as they are, by the purest principles c
reason, they are entirely sufficient for tn
purpose.
SO far as the interests Of my clients ar
concerned we may admit, for the sake 0
argument, that the Courts of a State hav'
jurisdiction of treason against the Unites
States, and yet the proof does not make
case Of guilt. The only proof against then
is that they made speeches, encouraging thu
people Of Cumberland County, and of Ten
nessee, 10 link their destinies with the cause
of the COnfederates in the recent uniortu
nate and bloody struggle. They maintained
/ that the cause of the COntederates was right
and these speeches were made after Iennes-
see had, by an overwhelming vote, lsuch an
/ one az she had never before or since cast for
any man or cause decided to sever her po-
| litical connection with the United States.
Treason is an ofense against sovereignty.
| In no country, either ancient or modern, has
any power assumed the right to punish
treason except sovereign powers; nor has
any law-Writer ever affixed any other detini-
ton to it except that it is an otfense against
sovereignty. All law-writers agree upon
that proposition. The lOdgment of SOW
ereignty is different in different countries.
In this country it is universally agreed, by
the jurist and statesman, that it Is lodged
in the people, and they exercise 1t, through
their representa- ives in Congress and the
State Legislatures, assigning to each their
requisite duties by organic laws called Con-
stitution. Tennessee is a sovereign State, or
treason cannot be committed against her.
If she is sovereign, and the very people in
whom ihat sovereignty is vested, command
or permit an act TO be done, can they then
turn and say that the party thus acting, by
her command or permission, is guilty of
treason2 We read with great horror of SOW
ereign who made his laws and concealed them
from his subjects. How much better is the
sovereign who commands, or permits an act
TO be done, and then Furnishes the party
committing it? Is it any less wrong because
the people, in their aggregate capacity, do
it? If so, upon what principle of morality
or Justice do the numbers, participating in
the act, affect its morality, justice or legality.
The facts proven, show that the actions of
the defendants were in accordance with the
will of the sovereign authority of the State
at that time 1t is not material for us to en-
quire whether the will of that sovereign
authority was right, when measured by the
standard of morality, religion or the organic
law of the United States Government. 1t
is sufficient for US to know that the act COM
planned Of was the will of the sovereign
power of the State, and if so, then the State
is estOpped from afixing TO tia penalty. The
case might be very different, if the parties
were indicted for an offense against the Uni
ted States. 1t might be agued, with great
that the inferior sovereignty
could not justify the violation of the sover-
eighty of the superior, or of an equal.
may say to to A, go to my farm and take any
Of my property you choose. Bot suppose
say TO him, go take what you choose from
my neighbor. Who would not say that, in
taking my property, he was guilty of no
criminal conduct; but, who would say, in
taking my neighbor's property, he was not
guilty of an ofense? Just so the sovereign
power of Tennessee may command its citi-
zens to commit an act that would be treason
against the United States; and the State of
Tennessee would be estopped from furnishing
the act rs treason against her sovereignty.
As to whether the citizen is bound to obey the
of the sovereign in this matter, is
a different question. II will not do to say
the Legislature of 1859 were traitors. This
il a denunciation. Denunciation is one
thing, and argument another. Besides, the
people in whom all sovereignty rests, by an
overwhelming majority, approved the action |
Of the Legislature. Then we insist that the |
State of Tennessee is estopped from furnishing |
these persons, because she, in her sovereign |
capacity, commanded, or permitted the acts |
aIafr I'D IF 70 a
We may place the defense of these de- |
endants upon higher ground still. We may |
admit the jurisdiction of the court, and that |
he State Of Tennessee is not estopped from
this presentment, and still the |
proof makes no case against them. They |
,annOt be convicted, either in the State or |
Federal Court, for treason against the State
IF Tennessee, or the United States, according |
@ the criminal code of any civilized or
Christian nation. This proposition can be |
clearly demonstrated without assuming |
hat State has right to secede or |
from the Union; or, that the |
command of the State Legislature, excuses
he defendants from liability to the United |
States. We can safely admit, for the sake of |
argument, or as fact, if you choose, that /
hese facts are settled against us, and still be /
lble to demonstrate that these defendants are
guilty Of no crime. 1t is not my purpose to /
Idmit that the command of sovereign pow
II, in a State would not go far in mitigating, |
{ not justifying, any action of its citizens /
Or, when AN occasion presents ITSELF and my |
interest and duty require of me, will main /
ain earnestly, with my small ability, that |
he command Of a sovereign State
ightfully expressed, goes far in extenuation
If the action of its citizens, if it does not
absolutely justify them.
Without descending to minutie, the gene
al facts of this case are, that the defendant
uttered heart and soul into the recent rebel
ion, and from a sincere and conscientious
,elief that he was discharging his duty to his
Top and his country. The people of Ten
lessee, in whom all sovereignty rests, had,
" overwhelming numbers voted TO sever
heir connection with the United States.
Vow, we do not maintain that this action of
he State was valid or binding upon the
United States; nor is it necessary for us to
o maintain. But we do insist, that the de-
endant believed it so, and acted upon that
elief in supporting the rebellion. 1t is a
ule Of law, that where there is no intention
D commit crime, there is no guilt. The
minus flrcndi must enter in and constitute
part OF every criminal offense. This salu-
Try rule of law is too familiar TO need any
eference to authority. Then if the defend
Mt did aid the rebellion, with the full be-
ef that he was discharging patriotic duty,
nd under the full and conscientious belief
nat he was acting in perfect accordance with
is allegiance, he is guilty Of no crime.
So soon as the Constitution of the United
tates was formed, the great men who fig
red in the revolution of l776, and imme-
lately after the close of the revolution, diff
FRED upon the question as to who was the
nal Judge of violations Of the Constitution.
me party maintained that the Supreme
curt Of the United States was the ultimate
-ibupal. the other that the sovereign power