Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1867-01-23
The Recent Decisions Of the SUI
prone Court.

The Recent Decisions of the SUI
prone Court.
The decisions Of the Supreme Court recent
y made, respecting the legality Of military
tribunals and the test oath, have attracted
wide attention. and provoked sharp criticism.
The questions before the court were so por-
tant, arc he deteimIpatiors of the majority
of the court so Intimately connected with
the political question Of reconstIuction, that,
while We have nc room to give the opinions
in full, our readers will expect from ne some
discussion Of the principles involved.
L. The court decided in the Milliean case
that persons neither in the military nor naval
service of the United States could not be
legally tried by military tribunals in places
where the courts are in the upobstructed ex-
ercise of their functions. The decision is
based upon these provisions of the Constitu-
ton: g The trial of ali crimes EXCEPT in
OF Impeachment shall be by jury" and g. No
person shall be held to answer for a capital
or otherwise infamous crime, unless on q
presentmenr or Indictment by grand jury,
except In cases arising IN the land or naval
forces, In the militia when in actual
vice in time of war public danger
nor be deprived OF life, liberty or property
without due process OF law"
The only provision of the Constitu ton in
any way modifying the clauses above set
forth, is the one providing that the privi-
leges of the writ of hdbeos corpus shall not
be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion
or invasion the public safety may require it,"
The court held thar, while the writ Of hdLe
as corpus was suspended, the executive might
order the arrest and detention of anybody,
and the court could not interfere to Ielease
| the arrested person but they also held that
no person could be legally tried for criminal
offense, except in the method pointed out in
the Cons titu ton. The only wonder is, as
people now without excitement read these
constitu tional prohibitions of military trials
of civilians, how any body ever came 10 sup
pose such trials were legal. The language OF
the Consultation Is as plain as it could be
made, and such trials are absolutely forbidden,
both by its letter and by its spirit.
2 The decision respecting the test oath
was given In a Missouri case, where q minister
had come to punishment 10 that state, under
| the laws and constitution of Missouri re-
qurIng all ministers, teachers, trustees, and
certain other persons 10 to ke a test oath before
acting in their official capacity; and In the
case of an attorney from Arkansas who had
besn pardoned by President Johnson, and
asked to be allowed to practice In the C. urt
without taking the test oath required of all
officers of the federal courts. The court held,
that the oath WAS in the nature of e post
| fdcto law; and was also like bill of at
tsinder both of which are forbidden by the
Constitution. They also held that it was
Furnishing person for a crime, without q trial
by jury.
| 10 the Missouri case their argument seems
weak. Chief Justice Chase and the other
three dissenting judges held that it was neither
an ex post fdcto law, nor bill of sttainder,
nor punishment for an offense, but only
such provision as the people of Missouri
had a right To make to protect themselves in
the future against the plots OF men who had
just been engaged 10 rebellion 1t only pre-
scribed qualifications in persons who attempt
| ed to act IN certain capacities and Offices.
This argument is much less forced, and much
more In agreement with common sense as
we'll With law, than the arguments of the
majority OF the court.
lite argument IN respect 10 the oath re-
CURED of attornies was the same in its general
scope in the Missouri case and the
dissent of the Chief Justice and his three
associates was for be same reasons as 10 that
case.
/ These decisions need exasperate nobody
and we do not know as We are Try they have
been made. We never we're much in favor
of a military government. The men of the
revolution who framed our government ad
seen the evils of military tribunals aud the
denial Of jury trials, and We're particularly
careful TO provide against such evils in this
government. They favored the larges, liberty
of the private citizen, aud agreed that he
should be amenable only to the lave of the
land az they were administered by the courts
and by juries of his peers and they put that
belief N unmistskable language into the Con-
stitution. Ii may be for the moment annoy
ing to find these constitutional provisions
invoked in behalf OF traitors, but this is an
incident of every law al every constitu tional
guarantee of the rights of the people. Laws
and constitutions can be no respecters of per
sons. Ii must be one law for all /; and unless
We are willing to surrender our own liberties
to the disposal OF any tribunal which happens
to be organized by the commander chief of
the military, whether he be a johnson or
Buchanan, or even = usurper who might at
the head OF the army seize the government,
We had better agree that the muniments of
liberty, as set up in the fundamental law.
shall be held sacred by every tribunal 10 the
lsnd.
| 10 the decision of the test oath case We and
much wholesome law. The court say The
"tbeory on which our institutions rest is. that
"ali men have certain inalienable rights.
s. among which are life, liberty and the pur-
" suit of happiness. Thus all places Of hopor
and position are open to every one, and all
care protected equally under the law" If
the government in all its branches will adhere
to this doctrIue. there will be no more oc-
casion tor test oa;bs- Congress and the pee
pie can stand On that platform. President
johnson and bis rebel friends NAV natter
themselves that the court has given them q