The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-05-28

T. a.
m. ne Edtor Of ne BUenfnO TeleoTdph;-In
.,,scnssing this question in your issue Of FIJI
49,, ,,o,, aav. here are no questions of facts to
s.yso,tledD . This is undoubtedly so In all that
',Sas 40 make n case Of treason for the acts o.
go.r,s which the Government claims as con-
a,itutinq the act of treason will not only be
90, sossed but are gloried in by him. And
1,onoe there is no necessity for the intervention
of a Jury TO pass ON a question Of fact.
Won say further, "His defense must necessa-
,,lv he on merely legal grounds, admitting the
Iac,s hnt denying that they constitute trea-
80, y This is also undeniably true. But legal
Svnestiona are or ought to be, decided by the
Judges and hence there appears TO be no neces-
sty ii 13I be said, however, that our form Of pro-
ceduIe requires the services OF jury IN all such
- Sos and that the Jury are the judges both OF
.sbs To- ~ and The facts You say further, "That
n Virginia fury might refuse TO convict him"
=, ts ISnIta fiIxelv that among any twelve men
1, \, 10 Ii,ia VINO might be empanelled as jury
IN mis- case, there would be NJ least one, proba-
NV more who would refuse to convict him
s,, D1S on the most direct evidence of his guilt;
bnt an acquitial in such circumstances, you
saw truly, would "carry no weight with It,
e'EN ENow does any one believe that Mr.. Davis,
or his COUNSEL desires any such acqutttal?
Does any one beieye tnat' Ior an az acqoit.aI, % @
de0ree upon the tidelity to the fallen chlef OF
some juTyman, guilty as hlmseI QI reason,
1ybo would take any oath imaginable for an
nmnnortnniIv 10 vindfcate the righteousness of
the "lost cause" and save the lie OF lls chlef
U 9avs nrofesses to believe, do his legal
advisers that he is not technically guilty OF
that thoagdd me- to their enemies he
had n right TO do so (wtthout being liable, In
case offailure, 70 be adJudged guilty OF treason),
giance which he owed to the state OF Missis-
sippi; and that, as the avowed chief Of the so.
called Confederacy, he was no more guilty of
treason against the United States in carrying
on war against them, than was the King of
england in the war OF 1872
on this point and on this point mainly SO
far as the question of treason goes, the issue is
to be made. The authorities of the United
States claim that every act of his, in mainte-
nance of his Confederacy and against the
Union, was treason.
disagree on the law. Let the advisers of Davis
be invited to agree on statement of the facts
which the Jury shall be instructed to find. and
thus reduce the trial to an argument before the
Court upon the real issue. These advisers pro-
Tess to be confident OF success, and their accept
ance or rejection of the proposition Will test the
the sincerity of their profession. l am no law
yer, and, of course, cannot suggest just how this
plan can be best accomplished; but If those en-.
gagged on both sides will act on the suggestion,
they will readily, ] have no doubt, hit upon
suitable and legal method.
The paramount object of the trial is not so
N uch, after all, the punishment of the cul prit
as the judicial and authoritative settlement of
the question OF allegiance, whether primarily
to the tate or to the United States, and whether
the Rebellion assumed such proportions as to
relieve the ACTON of parties in its behalf from
individual liability as traitors,
or course it is presumed Mr. Davis will not
seek to avail himself of any quibble of law, or
any bias of the jury TO obtain an acquittal, as
any ordinary criminal might do But upon
the principle of At1 Cesar aut nihit he expects
to triumph before the Court on his plea of prior
allegiance to his State, and the national posi-
tion he occupied, as he must expect a con-
demnation in case that plea is disalowed.
law before the Court, and let the Jury be in
structed to find the man guilty If his plea is
disallowed, and to acquit him il the Court sus-
Philadelphia, May 27, 1867.