The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-05-24
win Left. Davis be Trieda

Will jeff. Davis be Triedl
ONE result of the great excitement which has
been caused by the release of JEFF. Davis on
bail, will probably be that the Government VIII
be forced to bring him to trial next fall Davis
is now released on bail, to make his appear
ance at Court to answer to the charge Oh urea
son. We have no doubt that he will be forth
coming at the specified time. The Govern
ment must then 60 on with the trial, OF VIZ
tually abandon the case. There can be no
excuse for further delay, and there can be no
excuse for abandoning the case. The Govern
ment will hardly be willing to encounter the
nonular odium sure to follow Davis unoondi-
tional release. The Court will be ready to
proceed with the trial, the prisoner will be
ready. and the Government must go on with
its prosecution.
Let us glance at the probable aspects the
case will assume.
First, there are no questions of facts to be
settled. The Government, as a matter of
form, will establish the fact of Davis partici-
patton in the Rebellion, by the testimony, if
necessary, of Stephens, Lee Wise, and the
other Southern leaders. Davis will make no
attempt to deny the public position he held
That he levied war against the United States,
adhering to their enemies, giving them aid
and comfort, will be acknowledged.
His defense must necessarily be on purely
legal grounds admitting the facts, but denying
that they constituted treason. This will bring
up for judicial decision the whole question of
Cfofa rui1 nj L.,
question of the effect of establishing de facio
government upon the responsibility of those
engaged in it to the law of treason. Did the
character of the war change as it progressed
Did the Confederate Government, with its
de .tactO organization, army, ETC., receive such
recognition from our own Government as to
put those engaged in it in the position not
of domestic traitors but of foreign enemies
These, and like questions, must come up on
the trial, and will constitute the chief points
of interest connected with it.
1t is to be regretted that such great topics
cannot come directly before the Supreme
Court itself. Their decision by Judge Under
wood, or even by Chief Justice Chase, pre-
siding over an inferior Court for the purposes
of criminal trial, would not carry with it
such authority as is demanded by the gravity
of the questions themselves.
But there is the contingency that even
though the law of the case should be so laid
down by the Court as to make JEFF. Davis
guilty of treason, a Virginia jury might still
refuse to convict him. In the face of both
the law and the facts, and Of their own oaths,
the jury might still acquit him. Well, what
of it, suppose they should? Would such an
aoquittal carry any weight with it Could it
ever be pleaded as precedent, except by men
similarly unmindful of their oaths? OF course
not. The law of treason would have been
authoritatively declared. Davis would morally
stand convicted of treason. He would only
have escaped conviction through the acknow-
lodged perjury of the jury.
But what if convicted? He would not neces-
sarily be punished. The Executive could
interfere, and commute the sentence or pardon
him outright. Mr.. Johnsons action in the
premises in such contingency could not be
foretold. 1t would depend very much upon
his judgment of political consequences. He is
cold-bloOded enough to hang without mercy,
and crafty enough to pardon without cause.
But whatever his action might be, the law
would at least have triumphed. We should be
spared the national modification of an appa-
rent inability to stamp as legally reasonable
the great attempt made to overthrow the
Government by the Rebellion. And we cannot
help thinking that those who direct public
sentiment through the press had much better
spend their efforts in squirting the Government
on to Davis trial, than to bootless warfare
against single one of his twenty bondsmen.