The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-01-04
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT Es
THE CASE OF mULLIGAN. ~

L. So ( T.
We take pleasure in laying before our readers
this morning the following synopsis Of the opinions
delivered by the Supreme Court, on the 18th ult,
in the case er parte Of LAaopN P. MuLL1aAN de-
claring the legalty Of his trial. for alleged con-
spirucy, before military commission in Indiana,
and, in effect, ordering his discharge from prison.
he having been convicted and condemned to death.
The case, it will be remembered, was brought be-
fore the United States Supreme Court on certih-
cate Of division Of opinion Of the two Judges OF
the United States Circuit Court Of Indiana:
There are two opinions Of the court. The one
read by associate Justice Davis s elaborate in its
defence ef the constitution and the rights Of cit
IONS, and their protection in person and property
AS has been stated all the members of the Supreme
Court agree upon the point relating to habeds cor
wit Of 1a5eas corpus and oraer his reiease. On
these two questions there was no difference Of opin-
ion. Tie third question, Had the military COM
dissenting opSon which was read @ by Cbief Iusee Se
Chase for himself, and Associates Wayne, Swayne
and Miller, minority OF the court. In addition to
sd 5
controlling question in the case, OF the jurisdiction
OF the military commission to try him and legally
pamsn n1i 1a;a ne ne1ng eitaz9n Of Indiana and
No graver question WAS ever considered by this
court nor one which mora nearly concerns the
rights Of the whole people; for il is the birthrght
crime, to be tried and punished according to law
The power Of punishment ia, alone through the
pose, and il they are inefectual there is an imTau
nifty from punishment, no matter how great an Of
fender the individual may be, or how much his
crime may have shocked the sense Justice Of the
;ofthe law human rights are secured; withdraw that
protection, and they are at the mercy Of wicked
uat ta1S srSitea Is not
province to interfere; il there was not, it is our
duty to declare the nullity Of the whole proceed
peSa en- OF nd
merous and highly illustrative as they are
These ,precedents inform us Of the extent Of the
in eva lie from military trials. The founders % Of
our government were familiar with the history OF
tnat struggle, and secured, in written constitu:
@ @on ga E h eaase. hs Ps9 had g5essd Ss
constitution, snd Tie laws authorized by IT, thia
question midst be determined. The provisions q
that INSTRUMENT ton, on the sdminiatEat1on Of criminal
misconsttrn4ion or doubt Of their true meaning.
Those applicable to this case are found in that
clsuao %. Ssths Original 8! eonstsnqn which !, says
@ and es sas s0a5sn
fourth gfoelaims the right 70 be secure in perse9
seizure; and DIRECTS that : Judicial warrant shsI
supported by oath sor afirmstion. The aitt
swer for s capital or otherwise infamous crime
cept in cases arising n tha laa Of naval forces,
war or public danger, nor be deprived o. lie, lber
ty Or property without due process Of law Ani
the sixth g4aranseea the right OF trial by tnry i
sqsa gSS aaa e as Ssl
ed: t isih taese words "a al Iefiminal prose
dy and public trial kv an YYaral iurv OF the Stat