The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1866-12-19
The Case of Dr.. Watson as it is AT
fected by the last Decision Of the
Supreme Court.


ton with the case. The same point which
he decided will be brought up before the
commission for we take 1t for granted
that the first plea will be to the jurisdic.
ton of the tribunal. The commission
must decide for themselves the very i'm.
portant question whether they have the
right, under the Constitution of the United
States, either to try q citizen not be-
longing To the army or TO put his life in
per;l second time for one and the same
offence. The decision Of the Suprem,
Court Of the United States in the case OF
MuLIGAS, OF Indiana, was rendered just
in season to afford the commission all the
light they needed upon the question.
We therefore reproduce below as full
a report as we could find of that deci-
sion:
From the Washington Chronicle OF yesterday
The questions certified up in this land two
other cases heard with III were rs follows
l. On the facts stated in said petition and
exhibits ought a writ of hdbeds corpus 10 be is
sued according 10 the prayer OF said petition
2 On the facts stated in said petition and
to be discharged from custody as in said petit
ton prayed
Z Whether, upon the facts stated in said
petition and exhibits, the military commission
mentioned therein had jurisdiction legally to
try and sentence said Milligan in manner and
form as in said petition and exhibits stated.
As 10 the first two questions, IL is answered
nnirmatiyely and rs TO the third question, 1t
Unanswered in the negative.
MIR Justice Davis read the opinion OF the
court, in which, as 10 the objection To the
Jurisdiction Of the court in the matter, on the
ground that there was no suit pendinganu
before IT, il is held that n cause is sl1t, and
wherever there is q proceeding before court
brought 10 assert any right by any person,
that proceeding is suit. In THIS case there
was an appearance by the District Attorney
on the part OF the Government; but that is
immaterial as 10 the question OF jurisdiction,
rs the appearance was not necessary 10 sustain
it. The language Of the statute providing for
a certificate of division in any case where the
Judges are divided-upon the application of
either party lis intended rather 10 enlarge
the statute than 10 restrict ii in manner to
exclude the right of appeal In cases OF TINS
character, where only the name OF one party
appears.
vided against snch commissions m ther than in
favor of them BY the act of 1868, and that
Congress has not the constitutional power TO
authorize such commissions; that the Iohst-
tuition Is express against them, ana IL Is the
supreme law of the land III times OF war as IN
times Of peace. .,
MIR Chief Justice Chase read an opinion
I'm which Justices Wayne, Swayne, and Mil
Ter concurl dissenting from so much or the
opiuion of the court as held that Congress ala
not have the constitutional power 10 autho-
riys military commissions, but concurrng rs
10 the answer given TO the questions ceruned
up The dissenting opinion held that IN tilne
of war Congress Nay authorize military COM
missions 10 try offences such rs charged In the
case before the court.
1t will thus be seen that the Supreme
Court unanimously answered all three
questions in the affirmative for the dis
senting justices, while claiming that /" in
time of ,cQr" Congress had po,cer to autho-
rize the trial of civilians, conceded that
Congress had not done SO. And Justice
NELSON, of the Supreme Court, recently
rendered decision in Circuit Court OF
the United States that the courts were
bound to take notice that The war was
over, even if the President had not issued
a proclamation officially declaring the fact.
So that there is not one inch of ground upon
which the commission can base claim to
jurisdiction over the case of DR.. WATSON.
Acts of Congress are worthless in the pre-
sence of thiSdecision. Listen to that high tri-
bunal: d" The Constitution is express against
"H.em military commissions for the trial
"of ciyilians), and it is the supreme law of
"the land in times Of loar as in times OF
"peace."
Among the counsel before the Supreme
Court in this case was General BUTLER,
who, the National nteligencer say, spreads
"his oratory upon the justice and pro-
"priety of any act, however unconStitu-
"tional under existing circumstances, upon
I" the cardinal principle that all laws and
constitutions may be set aside or over
"ridden to save the life of the nation"
We quote this sentence TO show that
that dignifed tribunal will not listen to
these demagogical and dangerous pleas
based upon supposed danger to the " life
of the nation" but supports the Constitu-
,ion in its plain intent. Justices NELSON,
GRrrR, CLIFFORD, DAVIS, and FIELD con-
Cured in the whole opinion, while Chief
Justice CHASE, and Justices WAYNE,
SwAYSE, and MILLER differed as to only
one point.
The decision can have but one interpre-
tation. The National Intelligencer says :
"The court has decided that Congress has
"no po,oer to authorize the trial OF cltl-
"zen not in the military or naval service
"by a military court where and while the
"ordlnary courts of law are open and In
"operation."
We dwell upon this point because it was
under mistaken impression that Congress
could authorize him to act as he did that
General ScHoFIELD is supposed to have
acted in authorizing the trial of DR.. WAT
son. The same journal says in another
article
1--WE have hitherto affirmed that the Consti-
tution of the United States guaranteed 10
every citizen outside of the military service
trial by jury"
nThe laws are no longer silenced by the
clash of arms The supreme tribunal OF the
country has indicated their assaulted ma
jesty."
MADE such an assault upon the rights OF
the citizen impossible"
White and Black.
In an article Of the New York Times,
entitled "The Southern Legislatures" we
find these sentences:
uE,centing the unanimous refusal Of the