The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-02-03
The crime which he is alleged to have


vides that not only the United States, but
no State in the Union shall pass bill of
attainder or er post facto law. -
In conclusion, Mr.. 0uld stated that the
propositions which he had stated were
only those which had been decided by the
Supreme Court, that they had affirmed
every one Of them, and he appealed to
their action to sustain him in his views.
Z MIR. Wells said that he was speaking
som ewhat irregularly but under an ar
'rangement between himself and the coun-
sci for the prisoner he gaveFu the open
ing speech, but reserved to himself the
right to close. .l9zaas 5Htn -5s' -
Court The points involved in this case
are. so important that the court would like
to hear all that can be said on either side.
Mr.. w ellis, resuming, said that he had
nothing to say now about the reconstruc-
tion acts. Before we proceed to discuss
them it is necessary for you to say that
you are in possession of all the subject
matter. On the question of jurisdiction,
the counsel had suggested that there was
a waiver; that this petition is not in order.
Are we, then, in court Have We, then, a.
hearing before your @ ~ sssE -
Judge Ould had intended to cite case
in point, but had overlooked it. He re-
ferred toia case in Hemstead's Reports.
His position was that after writ had
been awarded the court had no power to-
set it aside. So 9.goees l ,8
Mr.. Wells Early in the history Of the
English law it was required by the Judges
that the application should be sworn to-
OF or 20 Sha5 foo 70 md W.
cumstances of. the case and it became g
writ of right when the foundation on
which It'll to stand is laid, and that founda-,
tion is the statement of the facts and cir
cumstances. If the writ is fair on its face.
it must be served, and no man dare refuse
to obeyit. i. 80; -. !. -. !.
The Court: The court does not know of
any such prohibition as that notary public
could not take an affidavit to be used in
this court. f-.-.. -. =,
Mr.. Wells said that Chief Justice Mar
shall had so decided.
The Judge: The practice in this court
is, under act of Congress, made to conform
as nearly as practicable to that of the
State courts. ..tz .s.s .s.r-3. =. ~.
Mr.. Wells: Why do not the counsel
bring forward the prisoner, and let him
swear to the truth of the petition
The Court That would remove the OBJ
jections at once. $50. ~
MIR. Ould: We will do it now. Come
forward, Churchwell Combs. s. !,
Mr.. Wells: Hold on, there. I have
something to say on that subject. Strike
out the return on your writ, and let us
have new return, and will consent.
Having obtained return which they had
no right to have, they now come into
court and say that. the return is conclu-
siye., Let the case begin de nouo, and we
will have return such as the true state
of the case demands. The petition does
not state enough. Where was the crime
committed?
Judge Ould: Our client stands here in
a very singular position. he says that he
has never done anything deserving of pun
ishment, and therefore cannot state who it
was he murdered, as is alleged against
him, or where or when it was done; but
the warrant under which he was arrested
says it was early in 1865.
General Wells: There was one period
in 1865 when it was military offence, and
one when it was not.
The questions now Under consideration
before the court arenow being argued be-
fore the Supreme Court at Washington,
and with the doubts and uncertainties
which environ them, why should we go on
in this case. The personal liberty of one
man bears no comparison to that of the
peace of q whole community, and we
should be adding fuel to the flames Of ex-
citement which now rage over the land.
The Court: 1t has been the singularly
hard fortune of this court to give construc-
tion to many acts of Congress, and under
the excited state Of the ptiblic mind its
decisions could gain the approval of one
side only. Now, here comes a case of
vast magnitude, embracing the constitu-
tionality of the reconstruction acts, and it
must beg that little delay shall be al
lowed until the question shall have been
decided by the Supreme Court.
Messrs. johnson and Uuld opposed the
delay, inasmuch as their client was lying.
in Jail; and as the case now before the Su-
preme Court can only come up on Fri
day, it would involve very long delay.
The Court: If the counsel of the pri-
soner think that the case of their client
demands it, the case will be taken up on
Monday.
The court then adjourned to this morn
ing at 10 O'Clock, when General Wells will
resume his argument. t.s ~