The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-01-11
THURSDAY, JANUARY IL, 1866.
The Prospect Of the Trial and Conviction
of Jefferson Davis.
DnvictiOI


the Senate asking information relative to the
confinement of JEFFERSON DAVIS and the
crimes of which he stands accused. The
documents are of the utmost Importance, ex.
planning as they do most fully what is the
intention of the Administration in regard to
their treatment of the late President of the
so-called Confederacy. There can remain no
shadow OF doubt on the mind of any careful
reader of these documents, that DAVIS will
never be tried by a military court. The opinion
of the first law officer Of the land distinctly
declares against such a mode of dispensing
justice. he says :-"I hare eUer thought that
trials for treason cannot be held before
military tribunal The ciuil courts hare
alone jurisdiction Of that crime" There is,
therefore, so far as Mr.. SPEED is concerned
no prospect of the leader OF the Rebellion
being brought before military tribunal.
1t is needless for us to deny that we have
read the opinion with the sincerest regret.
The reasons why we favor a military trial
are numerous. We hold that the security of
the nation in the future, as well as the punish
ment of Rebels in the past, require that "trai-
tors be punished and their crime made odious."
To punish all who were engaged in the crime
as accessories would be impossible-to punish
none would be to set premium on treason
in the future. In the person of the chief in
stigator and his immediate colleagues are
found those on whom the dignity of the law
should be vindicated. And should the trial
of these persons come before a civil court,
there is every prospect that they will be ac-
quilted. Especially is the prospect increased
when the opinion Of the Attorney-G General de-
clares that
'The question then arises Where and when
must the trials thereof be held? In that CLAUSE
of the Constitution mentioned in the resolution
of the Senate. it is plainly written that they
must be held in the State and district wherein
the crime shall have been committed. / know
that many persons OF learning and ability enter
tain the opinion that the Commander-in-Chlef
OF the Rebel armies should be regarded as con-
structonally present with all the in Iurgents who
prosecuted hostihties and made raids upon the
Northern and Southern borders of the loyal
States. This doctrine OF constructive presence,
carried out to ITS logical consequence, would
make all who had been connected with the Rebel
armies liable to trial in any State and district
into which any portion of these armies had made
the slightest incursion: 1t follows, from what
have said, that am of the opinion that JEFFER-
SON DAVIS and others of the insurgents ought to
be tried in some of the States or districts in
which they may be charged"
1t is. therefore, clearly the intention of the
Administration to try DAVIS in a civil court
In one of the Southern States, The law
requires that a criminal be adjudged guilty or
not guilty by jury OF his peers in the vici-
mage. Consequently, the case of DAVIS will
be decided by twelve Southerners, his own
subordinates and accessories in treason, any
one of whom will be able, by his vote, to pre-
vent his conviction. When all this is thought
of the improbability of his punishment is
evident. The case would stand, the United
States VS.. JEFFERSON DAVIS. The defend
ant would be acquitted, the country lose the
case, and with that loss proclaim to the world
that all the blood shed was lost in an unholy
cause that all the millions incurred are an
unlawfully contracted debt; that the South
was right and the North was wrong. We
would thus lose all for which we had been
struggling. The interests involved would be
most vital; and yet, because of a legal quib-
BILE, technicality about which there is at
least doubt, the Government would place in
the hands OF a Rebel jury the decision
Of the question for which they had
been fighting. The Jolly of such a course
would astonish the world, and expose our
whole nation to ridicule. And yet it is advo-
Gated by the chief law adviser of the President.
We are at loss to understand why the case
OF those who appealed to the tribunal of war
should not be tried before that tribunal. To
him must be said, if thou hadst not appealed
unto CESAR, thou mightest have been set at
liberty; but thou hast appealed unto CESAR
ard to CESAR thou must CO." Or, if he must
be tried before a civil court, why could he
not be made to appear at Chambers
burg, or elsewhere, where he sent his
emissaries? In the trial OF AARON BURR
the question was pertinently asked, whether
the case must be so construed as
to allow the instigators of treason to 60 free,
while the poor deluded follower be held as
guilty, merely because he repaired where the
author of the crime directed him? ? The same
question may be asked to-day. Why cannot
DAVIS be tried in Pennsylvania as the instl,
gator OF the treason as well as at Richmond
irom which he issued his commands?
II he is tried before Southern civil court
he will be acquitted, and the voice of the
whole nation is demanding his conviction
The highest tribunal known to man, that O.
force, has forever settled the legality Of seces-
sion. 1t has pronounced 1t treason. Every
one knows that DAVIS is guilty; he now
merely waits the passage of sentence. There
could not jury be empannelled which had