The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1867-01-08
Military Courts for the trial ofCivilians
UncOnStitutionai.
TIE MiI.l.IGAN DECISION.

Unconstitutional.
TIE MLlIGAN DECISION.
The recent decision Of the Supreme
Court in the case OF l.. Il. Milligan one of
the Indiana consprators, who was tried
by a military commission at Indianapol.
in October. 1864, is important and inter
csting, as affecting all similar eases. The
legal decisions rendered by the Court are
too lengthy for our space, AMI our read
cis will be confetti with simple statement
OF the case, the questions brought before
the Court and the decision rendered..
From the Boston Jo,wam we extract the
following statement: 81
In October OF 1851 Gen. 4. i. Hoyc,.
commanding the Military District OF In
diana, ordered the arrest of Lamhdin Z.
AllIlisan, who had bccn for twenty years
citizen OF Indiana. Ever since that
time he has been KEEP, in close confinement
In the same month OF his arrest he was
taken before II military commission al
Indianapolis, tried on certain charges and
specifications, louul guilty. and sentenced
TO be hanged in May of the following year
ihis > ntrncc was aItrrward approved by
President johnson. but before the time
arrived TOR the execution q. the sentence
he ordered It to br 20 ,mutcd liz : AZ
OF SO Mr. MiiIig,n presented "a peu,lul
To the United States Circuit Court for
In llama, asking to be discharged from a,r
alleged unlawful impti,unncut lie took
the grolnd that the Indianapolis. lliltIry
Commission had no jurisdiction to try MIN
upon the Charges ref RED or upon any
charges whatever, hecause he was - cit.
IN Of the United States an the State OF
indiana, and bad rot bt,n. since the cUm
menccmtnt II the late rebellion. rr,i lent
I'll any OF tho States whose ciilzans were
arraycd against tie Government. and that
abe right oi trial ly jury was .ualan led
I 70 lin 10y the Constitution Of the | nitcd
States; AMI he asked that he might he
hr nsht before the court, AMI either turn
ell over TO the proper civil tribunal to be
poccc ed against a, curJinL to the law Of
the Inl, or discharged ircm custody alto
4tiher. The Indiana judges could net
agree IN regard 10 the lawiuIncss OF Mill
gam mpli. oum nj, n,li;herciore Mllisan :,
H. 81 "a Rcd The case up to The SUPP, IN
Court for final decision
The questions raised in the Circuit
Court and submitted 10 the ,'upr,m me Court
tor arbitration were rs follows: First.
On the fact, stated in the said petition and
exhibits ought II writ OF Mt}.,s co!3ptS TO
be issued second, On the facts stated
IN said pciiticn AMI exhibits ought the
said lambdin L. Mil,igan to be discharged
from custody as in said petition prayed ,
Third, Whether, upon the facts : ate! ia
sand petition and cxhitli-, the mi!lar,
commission mentioned therein had iusi--
diction legally to try and sent nee sad
MlIlgan in manner and iur,n rs ia sand
petition and exhibit is -talel. The two
decisions that have recently been owen b.,
the lndg'@ Of the Supreme Court do NOT
infer III their general view Of the ease.
they are unanimously OF the opinion that
u writ OF dHjaS c1}YjS should haze been
ssuel, Tat Mtiligu ,houId have been
/ discharged from custody, and that the
military commission which tried lin ha,!
no Icgal Jurisdiction TO try and con,irt h,m
Tie diff renee inthc opinions givon 10y ,Iu.
ices Davis, Field, Clifford, Gricr am
Nelson on the one han AMI by .I1,iic. ,