The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-10-28

uual on tIlal Whcnlt neither wishes nor intends |
to inhct.
But suppose the Court afirms the right of
secession; what follows then? WHY that we
waeed against the South unjustifable war:
and hat the seeding States ought to be rein
stated in the independence they rightfully |
assumed. IL is indescrbably preposterous to
hold Trial. at this late day, to determine
whether any such doctrine is to be admitted.
The trial OF Mr.. Davis can settle nothing
which is not already settled on immovable
foundations. 1t will neither make any differ
ence in his personal fate, nor in the future
action OF the Government respecting the rela-
tions Of the States to the Federal authority.
It will therefore be a moclzing hurnbug dressed
up in the solemn robes of Justice.
But cOnceding, for argument, that the right
fulness of the war is an open or a doubtful
question, and that the trial of Mr.. Davis will
determine it, 1t is proper to inquire whether
the settlement hangs on the charge of the
judge or on the verdict of the jury. II on
the latter, verdict of acquittal will upset the
whole theory of the war, and all the questions
which the war is supposed to have decided
are liable to be ripped open by the caprice or
the sectional prejudces of a Southern jury.
But if the settlement depends on the expected
charge of Chief Justice Chase, everybody
knows as well beforehand, as anybody can after
the charge is delivered what its substance will
be- Having been a consenting member OF the
Government which waged the war against
secession he can decide but one way. Being
a Republican candidate for President, he will
not blast his prospects by espousing defunct
secession. If, therefore, the object OF trying
Mr.. Davis is to find out whether Chief Justice
Chase thinks a State can legally exempt its
citizens from the penalties of treason, nothing
could be more idly superfuous.
1t is of no practical Importance to decide the
question whether a State may shield its cit-
fro,, oil Of ba
United States. In respect to Mr.. Davis him
self it is confessedly of no practical conse-
quence since there is no intention to hang
lin. 1t signifies equally little in respect to
cases that may arise in future rebellions. The
utter futility of any judicial decision on
question so purely theoretical, will be appa-
rent as soon as we consider the provisions of
the Constitution in respect to criminal trials.
They must in all cases be before jury of the
State in which the crime has been committed.
But if the crime has been commanded by the
Government of that State a majority of its
people are accomplices; the State Govern
ment being merely the organ through which
the majority of the people execute their will
In such a State, the majority of every Jury
will consist of accomplices of the person on
trial, and any one juryman of the whole
twelve can prevent conviction. The theo-
retical question whether the State can right
fully protect its citizens from the penalties of
treason is therefore trivial. If State con-
sisted merely of its officers, the question
might be of some Importance; but inasmuch
as a State consists of its people, it is idle
to inquire whether they can absolve them
selves from the penalties of treason, when
conviction is possible only by the unanimous
verdict of twelve jurymen drawn from among
them.
The charge of Chief Justice Chase if he de-
livers one, will decide nothing respecting
future punishments for treason; nor would
an adjudication by the Supreme Court decide
anything. Every future trial will be before
a separate jury, and whether the prisoner is
punished will depend upon the consent of the
| whole twelve and not upon the charge of the
| presiding judge. The question of State pro-
lection cannot arise except in cases where a
| majority of the citizens from whom the Jury
men are drawn were accomplces in the alleged
| crime; and let the judge in each trial charge
as he will, it is still for each juryman to form
| his own judgment, and any one of the twelve
| can save the prisoner.
Chief Justice Chase of course knows per-
fectly well that the proposed trial of Jefferson
| Davis is a solemn humbug. He has fought
| shy of it as long as he could, and he would
keep aloof from it altogether if he were not a
| candidate for President 1t is the cant of the
so-called Conservative Republicans that drives
him to dip the tip of his judicial fingers in
| this farcical business. He is understood to
Il
| universal amnesty, universal suffrage" wing
| of the party. Their opponents pelt them with
/ cant about the awful crime of treason which
| they are unwilling to have punished; and
either from moral cowardice or political ex-
| pediency, Mr.. Chase permits himself to be
canted into participation in a judicial farce.
| The chorus of howls raised against Mr.. Greeley
when he signed the bail bond, warns the Chief
| Justice that he must not seem slack; and
| he consents to preside at Richmond from
the same motives that led him to make stump
| speeches to the Southern negroes two years
ago. But he is planning to shirk the trial
while protesting willingness to conduct it..
He consents to be present at its opening, but
declines to remain till its close. The offer to
be present on the 13ih of November is a de-
eeitful dodge, for he knows that the trial can
not be brief Many days, perhaps many weeks,
| will be spent in getting a jury. Much time
| will be consumed in examining and cross
examining witnesses. Before the trial is con-
cluded, the Supreme Court will sit at Washing
| ton, and the Chief Justice declares that he
| cannot be absent The consequence win be
that the charge to the jury, the chief
thing for which he is wanted, will
devolve on Judge Underwood, and Chief
Justice Chase will escape the responsibility
of giving any opinion except on matters
merely preliminary or incidental. The pre-
| tense that he cannot be absent from the OPEN
ing of the Supreme Court is a subterfuge. A
majority of the judges would suffice to hold the
| Supreme Court, which has more than once
opened and advanced far into its term without
the presence of a Chief Justice. Not only is
the proposed trial itself humbug and farce,