The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1868-03-22
THE MccARpLE CASE.

The argument of Mr. D. d. Field, before
the Supreme Court, in the McCardle case, is
published in full, in the New York Herald Of
the 14th. 1t is a full and decisive examine
ton of the case in its constitutional bearings,
and it is peculiarly suggestive as coming from
lawyer who has always been prominent on
the Republican side. 1t is worthy of remark
that, whilst many able lawyers among the
radicals have furnished convincing Arguments
against the constitutionality of these recon
struction measures, not solitary example can
be found of Democratic lawyer taking the
opposite view Indeed the case is too clear
for argument, and the Republican party
stands self-condemned when it has to resort
TO desperate expedients and indecent tricks
to prevent the expression of a judicial opinion
which it knows must be fatal to its policy and
its acts
The McCardle case, of course, is familiar to
our readers; but brief statement of the
points involved in it, may not be uninterest-
ing, Col McCardle editor of the Vicksburg
Times, wrote, and printed in his paper, certain
comments on the conduct of the military au-
thorities, which were personally distasteful
and Objectionable to the district commander.
He was arrested and tried before a military
commission on the charge of Impeding re-
construction" A habeds corpus was taken
out before the Circuit Court, and thence the
case comes up on appeal before the Supreme
Court. The points made by Col McCardle's
counsel are that citizen of the United States,
not in the army or navy, cannot be subjected
to military trial without direct violation of
the Constitution; that, whatever offense the
accused may have committed, he must be
tried in accordance with the rights guaranteed
by the Constitution, whether Mississippi
be recognized as a State or not, inasmueh as
be is tried within the jurisdiction of the
United States, and the Constitution is, for the
United States authorities, the supreme law,
within such limits. Mr.. Field, finally, sums
up the case in these points:
Fsrst-It is not true that Mississippi is not
State in the Union.
Second Mississippi is not only State in
the Union, but her people have all the rights
of citizens of State.
Thhd-Whether Mississippi is State or
not the people residing within her limits
cannot be subjected to military government
by Congress.
1t is possible that this case may be decided
as the Milligan case that is to say with sole
reference to the validity of military commits
sions without reference to the general consti-
nationality of the law creating such military
commissions. Yet, even this limited decision
would greatly impair the validity of the re-
construction acts, by depriving the military
authorities of the power to enforce their
DEGREES. 1t is possible, besides, that the
Judgment may embrace the whole ground
covered by the acts, inasmuch as the counsel
for government, or rather for Congress- were
forced to assert difference between the Nc
Cardle case and the Milligan case, arising out
of the assumed difference between the rela-
tons to the Federal Union of the States
respectively in which the cases originated.
If the court notice this assumed distinction,
and it seems necessary to notice it as the
only argumentative ground taken by the
reconstruction lawyers, the whole question
of constitutionality in all the bearings of the
reconstruction acts, is necessarily involved.