Litchfield enquirer., 1867-01-10
Military Cour ts.

One Ot the most important declS1onS ever rendered in the Supreme Court of the Uni ted States, is the one recently made in the case of Lambdin P. Milligan. -..-.z .zzsz
 The facts are these:' A powerful, secret, military organization had been formed in the Western States, with its head-quarters in Indiana, and having for its object resis- tance to the draft, liberation of Southern prisoners of war, seizure of State arsenals, and open cooperation with the Southern rebellion. In the fall of 1864, these facts coming to the knowledge of the Govern ment, Milligan, one of the chief conspira- tors, was arrested in Indiana, tried there, by Court Martial, and condemned to death He petitioned the U. s. Circuit Court of that State, under the Act of Con- gress of 1863, to either turn him over to the proper civil tribunal for trial, or grant his discharge, and the matter came up to the U. S. Supreme Court for final decis- ion.
 The Act of 1863 provides that all per- sons held in confinement by the govern ment, other than prisoners of war, shall be entitled to discharge, unless indicted by the next Grand Jury summoned in the dis trict of their residence, after the time of their arrest The imprisonment of Milli- gan was in direct violation of this provis- ions of the act of Congress, and the Court unanimously held that he was entitled to his discharge. Five of the Judges, uni ting in the majority opinion, went beyond the decision of the case in dispute, and gave their opinion against the legality of trying civilians before military courts, in any case, unless in districts where the ordina- " administration of justice is suspended by war.
 Their views are thus expressed:-
 eff in foreign invasion or civil war the courts are actually closed and it is impossible to admins ter criminal justice according to law, then. on the theater of action of military operations where war really prevails there is necessity to furnish sub stitute for the civil authority thus overthrown to preserve the safety of the army and society; and no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course As necessity creates the rule, so it limits it's duration fo l ttis goUe771,nem as con- ti,aued after the courts are reinStated, I is gross usG,pdtioR of po,cer. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction It is also confined to the locality of actual hostilites. Because during the late Rebellion it could not have been enforced in Virginia where the national au- thority was overturned and the courts driven out, it does not follow that it should obtain in Indiana where that authority was never disputed and jus tice was always administered. And so in the case of foreign invasion, martial rule may become a necessity in one State when in another it would be 'mere lawless violence.
 Chief Justice Chase, with three of the other Judges, dissent from the majority opinion on this point, and maintain that martial law is admissible for the trial of civilians under the following circum stances
 When it G is called into action by Congress, ol temporarily, when the action of Congress canno be invited and in case of iustfying excush1g II time of peril, by the President; in times of irsur rection or invasion evil or foreign war; within districts localities where ordinary law no longer adequately secures public safety and private rights
 "We think that the power of Congress at such times and in such localities authorize to trial fol primes and for the security and safuty af the na' tional forces may be derived from it's constitution al authority to raise and support armies and to de- clare war; if not from it's constitutional authority to provide governing che national forces. We have no apprehension tnat this power under our Ameri- can system of government i'll which all official au- thority is derived from the people, and exercise under direct responsibility to the people, is more likely to be abused than the power to regulate commerce or the power to borrow money and VIC arc unwilling to give assent by silence to ex- pressions of opinion which seem to calculated, though not intended, to cripple the Constitutional power of the government and to augment the public danger in the times of invasion and rebel hon"
 The vital difference between these two opinions seems to be this: Five judges re- quire the accomplished fact of invasion, rebellion, and the overthrow of legitimate civil authority in any locality before they deem the trial of civilians before military tribunals, legal. The four dissenting judges maintain, on the other hand, that, as g measure of preoention, civilians may be brought to trial before courts martial, when ever the imminent danger of revolt or in- vasion renders such course necessary. Oi this necessity, Congress is the sole judge, and can designate the times and places fol the exercise of this power, or ratify previ. ous acts of the executive, which would be illegal without such ratification.
 The point upon which this difference oi opinion arises not being essential to the decision of Milligan's particular case, the dicta neither of the majority nor of the minority, can be considered settled law; but they are important as indicating what may be held in future decisions. As the Chief Justice intimates, the question is of great importance since if the views of the majority are correct, Congress has no pow CT, by healing act, to protect the officers who sat on military commissions, the Secre. tary of War who ordered them, or the men who executed their decrees, from both civil and criminal suits Why, if such is the law, could not President Johnson be tried, and convicted of the murder of Mrs. Sur ratt?
 D9e A correspondent writes us :-". lately called on Mrs. Anna Smith of River ton, who was one hundred and one year of age, April 18th, 1866. She has not beer able to walk for three years, having disa = H.1 T. | NI&@