The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1868-03-11
The McArdle Case.

As this case has assumed national impos
lance, a review Of Tia facts and Circumstance
concerning it will be interesting.
Not many months ago, General Ord, mil
tary ruler of Niseissippi. arrested W. b. Nc
Ardle, Editor Of the Vicksburg iSun ana
Times, and caused him to be brought befors
military commission, upon the following
charges and specifications:
Charge disturbance of the public peace
Specification of the charac
ter Of General Ord, and denunciasioa of dsa.
potism and usurpafion of authority.
Charge II-1nciting to breach Of The
peace.
Specifcation-Colonel McArdle, in an sar,
ticle published in his paper, said that if Gen
eral Ord removed Humphreys and appointat-
Mr.. Burwsll in his stead, that Gov. Humph-
reys would refuse to surrender the State ar-
chieves to Ord's appointee. That probaby
General Ord would force him from his Office
by the bayonet; and then higher tribunal
than Governor Humphreys, or 'sSatrap Ord, u
would decide whether Mississippi was Fc.
land and Ord her autocrat.
Charge III-Iibel
Speci6cation-Defaming the character OF
one Captain Platt, of the Freedmen's Bureau
Charge IV--Impeding Reconstruction.
Specification advising voters to remain awsy
from the polls
McArdle having been taken in custody BY
the military commission, application was made
to Judge Hill, the United States District cour,
Judge for the District of Mississippi, who is
sued habeas corpus, and the prisoner wa
brought before him. The Judge delivered al
elaborate opiaion, that there was no judicia!
tribunal in the State, POT subject to General
Ord having cognizance Of the offences charged
against McArdle; that he could not come &c
a clear conviction of mind to pronounce the
reconstruction acts of Congress unsonstisu-
tional, and that the offence charged sgainat
McArdle is one upon which he was subjec;
to arrest and trial before the military tribu,
nal. The prisoner was therefore remanded
to the custody Of the military authorities.
Upon this decision an appeal was taken to
the United States Supreme Court, at Wash
ington; and, OF course, the case at once d.
tinct y and preemptorily Faisea the question
Of the constitutionality of the reconstruction
acts of Congress. But when it appeared up
on the regular docket several hundred case.
we're found to be before il, and motion was
made 10 advance it. Such has been the Gus
tom in the Supreme Court with criminal Ca
SEES, involving theslife or property of citizens
This motion was granted though contested to
> considerably degree, and perhaps objected
70 by some Of the Judges, althoug h we have
no positive proof that such was the fact. The
hearing Of the case is ret for the first MONDAY
in March, when the constitutionality or M
constitutionality Of those monsters Of iniqui-:
y, the reconstruction acts, will be decided by
The supreme tribunal of the land. In the
meantime the Radicals in Congress became
acquainted with the Act that five out of eight
IF the judges on the Supreme Bench would
probably decide against the acts, and so, to
this, ltvo motione hays been made:
'ne requires that SIX Of the eight judges III
The Supreme Court shall be necessary to de-
clare . law unconstitutional and the other
axes out Of that tribunal all political cases
hat may now be pending iR it, and this
among the rest