Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-10-19

1
liken was then arrested by the United
States troops. This is the SUM and sub
stance of the EARNED violation of parole p
as disclosed in the return of Lieutenant
Hugo, colored up in legal phraseology by
counsel. Attorney General Wallace intro
duced no evidence resting the case on the
! return. - ~.
Judge Trigg proceeded to deliver his
opinion, an abstract Of which we present
He said the case presented two questions /:
lst. Are the particular acts recited in
the return a violation Of the terms of the
parole
I'd. If so, is the petitioner properly held
for trial before military court, or has such
court Jurisdiction? t1-'t - At-'''-
he referred to the case of General
Rucker last year, in which he decided that
a parole only existed during the war; if
terminated with the war itself; when peace
was restored, he was only responsible TO
the civil authority /; no military tribunal
had jurisdiction. In the Rucker case the
motion to discharge the prisoner was over
ruled, and he was bound over to answer
the Indictment of treason in the civil
courts He saw no reason TO change his
OBAhACh 40 "a BANoCO tue ADOFc case. he
President must see that the Laws are execu-
ted. The acts Of 1895 give him power
to call ont the troops and militia to SUD-
press insurrection. There is no necessity
for formal declaration of war in a
rebellion, and the President could not be
expected to await the action of Congress.
de had the authority given him in the con-
stitution and the acts of 1895, to suppress
insurrection, and be would best know when
that insrrrection was entirely suppressed.
1t Is different in foreign war, which is
ended by treaty of peace. With insur-
gents no treaty can be made; they have
only to lay down their arms, and peace is
restored-when the war ends. When the
civil courts are open, that moment they
take the place of military courts. 1t is
perfectly ridiculous to say that war yet ex-
lists, and that the civil courts are super
seded by military authority until Congress
shall declare otherwise. When war ceases,
military authority over citizens for ofenses
also ceases.
Even if war existed at present, was the
otiense military one, or against the State
laws? There are two branches TO a parole
the first, not to take up arms against the
United States; the second, the paroled
prisoner is permitted to return to his home,
and he will not be disturbed By the United
States so long as he obeys the laws of the
State. The first is a military obligation.
The civil authorities have a right to pun
ish for violations of the second. The Sc
cond branch of the parole merely affords
protection to the citizen from arrest and
Imprisonment by the United States so long
as he obeys the parole. For violation of
the military order in times of peace, the
United States courts are open. Military
commissions are repugnant to our sense of
Justice, and the theory of our government
when civil courts are open. The offense
disclosed in this return was a violation of
the laws of the State, not of the United
States, and was not an armed violation of
q parole. The prisoner will be discharged,
as he is illegally detained in custody by the
military authorities.