Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1867-12-11

cenferrine upon Congress the power 'to make rules
or the o. me ana sse AMI prop for carry
ing into execution the foregoing powers article seeon
not statute creating dining crimes or to enforce
ne laws Of the State providing for The trial and punish
81 against such laws, but rs means necessary
and proper for the government OF the military forces Of the
United states aud the preservation of good order and dsc
Then assumngras we do that Congress- ma, provide for
tne punishment Of any or al acts criminal otherwise
pne OF the army and in such manner may deem pro-
per- when committed by persons in the military service of
the United States and subject 70 the articles Of does
this case stand The laws OF tennessee defines MURDER
eares it crime and provides for M punishment The
er Of the State to pass such laws is inquestioned.
The United states have provided Tor the punishment Of
murder and other Offences when Committed by persons IN the
ce Of war during existence civil war, instruction
rebellion and this think tho exercise Of power
conferred by the Constitution Of the United States
The the United States and that of the State Of
Tennessee each within its sphere separate and distinct
offences against its laws but neither can by merely pro-
dng for the punishment Of offenders against its laws, de-
against laws that the act may be
offence against the laws Of both make difference
to provide punishment for offence against the laws Of
the State One sovereign may not administer the criminal
laws Of another GUST another Of its jurisdiction 90 try and
punish offender against its laws by Furnishing the
act Murder is offence against the laws Of Tennessee
whether the perpetraor be citizen soldier whilst il IS
only offence against the laws of the United States when
committed in time civil insurretion rebellion and
when the perpetrator in the military service of the United
States and subject to the articles Of war
ant to this prosecution has been tried and acquitted
ion Of he oonsuton of me United States which declares
nor baIi % n ~ ~ ic, co. IL sa1ns oesnee 10 be
twice put in Jeopardy of life or limb Now IS party aoe
be twice punished for the same act or would doun
hmen for the be in violation of that provision OF
the Constitution Of the United states9
the United States of Fox the State Of
Ohio Howard 0 Curtis AL decided In ls6 was an
indictment in the State Court Of Ohio for passing with
ulent intent base and counterfeit CON- IN the
good and legal dollar originating under satets o.
containing the following provisions tto-"lt = SHy
person shall counterfeit any OF the COINS % SOa,
copper currently passing in tins STATE b OF
every person so offending shall be deemed guilty Of INSIDE
upon conviction shall be imprisoned IN the penn
Tertiary and kept at labor not than fifteen nor
less than three years. The accused was convicted and
Judgment was affirmed Subsequently writ Of error was
removed into the Supreme Court Of
the United States insisted for the plaintiff in
statute of Ohio repugnant to the 9th and
9Th clauses of the sth section of the ls article OF the
Constitution of the United States by which Congress is
clothed with the power to coin money regulate the value
thereof and Of foreign ooin and to provide ioT he punish
Judge Daniel in delivering the opinion Of the Court says
been objected behalf Of the plaintiff in
that fthe state could pct penalties fos the offence Of
Ing base co and the Federal Government should dnounce
separate Jurisdictions might be liable twice punished for
the and the crme and that this would be IN viola
ton of the h article to the amendment to the Constitution
declaring that person shall be subject for the Of
fence to be twice put in jeopardy Of life limb, concedng
for the present that Congress should undertake. could
rghtuy undertake. punish cheat perpetrated between
citizens Of State because instrument In efecng that
cheat counterfeit coin of the United States The force
objection sought to be dedueed from the proposition is
perceived the position itself without real founda
ton.
The prohibitions attended to as contained in the amend
the Constitution, we'll others with which is
associated in those articles not designed limits
the State in reference 10 their citizens
They exclusively restrictions Federal intend
ed prevent interference with the rights Of the State and OF
their citizens Such has been the Interpretation given
these amendments by this Court in the of
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 9TH Pet 23 and such
indeed the only rational and Ineligible interpretations
bic nor credible should have anxiousiy insist
ed to engra upon the Federal Constitution restrictions up.
regarded the sine quo OF its adoption by
certain that in the bengnant spirit which the in
istered offender who should have suffered the penalties
denounced by the would not be subjected second time
punishment by the other for acts essentially the
is r 5ers The n5be sstr demanded Ti
But contrary Of policy and action either
probable usual this would by justify the conclu-
sion that offences falling within the competency Of different
restrain punish them would properly
subjected to the consequences which those authorities might
ordain and afix to their preparation.
The same question again brought attention OF
the Supreme Court of the United States the Moore
in 1865.
In that plaintiff was indicted and convict
the criminal code of Illinois for harborng
cretng negro slave and insisted that the statute up
on which the was founded was void because in
conflict with the provisions OF the Constitution OF the United
States in relation ugitiyes from labor with the
upon the subject and also because
eced the delinquent double punishment for the
fence much the act punishable under the laws
Of Congress Judge Grier in delivering the opinion Of the
said But admitting that the plaintiff in may
liable action under the Gets Of harborng pre-
that he would be twice punished fer same afenee An
its legal Specification the transgression
gs the injured party aud be Liable also punishment
breach Of the public in consequence of the
and be said in common Paranre 70 be twice punished
Every citizen Of the United States is also citizen Of STATE
Territory. He be said to allegiance to
eTegns, and may be liable to punishment for nactiOn
the laws Of either.
The be offence OF the law
Sverrsd that the Onenderas twice punished for tn
offence but only that by act he has committed
Offences each of which he is justly punishable cOul
the other Consequently this Court has decided the cas
Fox the State of Ohio, 9th f. 49, that State
punish the choe OF uerng or passing false coin as ohea
fraud pracced s citizens and in the the Uni
ted States Margod 9th How 500 that Congress- in thu
an offence against the United States
Bishop, his work Criminal Law, volume l. sections
1 49, 49, Some acts violate the duties both to the
United States and to particular State Some these acts
moreover made offences against both by the positive laws
Congress has the power to make particular thing
legislation exclusive of all other laws tending the matter
this proposition is not quite clear on principle and be
the if the statute of the General
Government neither in its terms by mpea-
ton, ssv Then ofsy ouoIi5 ne ne
opinion OF Moore The People Illinois
fore referred to- tbs author These views in ub-
The act Of Congress which the defendant was
ragned and tried is part Of the military the United
States designed to operate only time civil war; nsur
recon rebellion and then only upon persons the mill
ay service Of the United states and subject to the articles Of
Military law is entirely different from martial law while
the latter has been said to be- in fact the former
defined 5e and ordinances prescribed by
competent authority for the Of the military state
considered distinct community and in the United States
is chiefly statutory" st Bishop CIR. Law A. IS.
military hold that former acquaI or con-
yicen Of act by civil court good plea before
mSrtia charges and Specifications covering the
act Upon this subject it is said in a very valuable
work entitled Military Law and Courts Martial by Ben
nett pages O0 l01 and O2 The ground covered
by the incidents Of the trial Captain He was charg
ed with conduct preudca 70 good order and military disc
plne in cruelty beating kicking and atreating private
soldier belonging to his comand the 6h day Deem
oer 1882 ana with THIS aggravalon all Of which cruelty did
the death Of said private James Jones' Troop c. Sc
cond Dragons The Court Martial convened in APRIL 1870
The second special plea IN bar OF trial presented by the
cused to the effect that the charges against him were not
proper to be tried by Court Martial but only by civil
COURT and that the offence, committed at ALL
ted within the county of st. Johns T. f. and that the
peror Court Of the Eastern District Of Florida jurisd
plea aEd decided that they could conzance Of the
oheneeor the trial of which the Court convened The
General dsappTOved this decision, in much
the uBmary conduct charged ought to have been tried
civil tribunal ofrespect the civil authority
handing General deemed proper suspend all proceedings
known Captain II. would, Notwithstanding subject
trial before Court Martial for any breach Of the military
On 10th Of October 1884, Captain H. was tried before
the Court Of FLORIDA upon the Indictment for manslauer
the Pettury and the Judgment Of the Court thereof ac
The Court Martial having suspended in its proceed
ng and the impedment to the further military prosccuon
time having been removed the ordered to reas
bic and met on the 10th Of May 1872 The accused
pleaded IN par ms trial and acquitta the be-
mentioned indictment for mapslaughter showing
hencated transcript of the record Of the trial acquta
Court Florida. Martial would not admit
The validity Of such plea and proceeded to trial The accused
guilty and sentenced 10 be suspended
pay and emoluments for twelve calendar months.
The proceedings findings and duly approved
md carried into execution.
In comments, the Attorney General says and
battery aud homicide violations Of the municipal laws Of
he place where committed 70 be tried and punished by the
proper tribunal Of the state Territory where peace IS bro
and laws offended
being officer soldier of
the United States aud above the breach Of 1he
oca breach also Of the law Of The United States in
olaOn the rules and articles for the Of the
,rmics Of the United States.
In such a the offender is punishable 10th citizen
the municipal laws Of the place and also sol
her officer subject 20 The military law OF the United States
uch double accountability TO two different jurisdictions aud