The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-07-16
Argument for me PETITIONER BY Mr.
Phillips.
Reply OF Attorney General Hoax!

Argument for Ihe PetitIOner BY Mr..
Phillips.
Reply OF Attorney General Hoax!
Wednesday morning at eleven o'clock
Chief Justice Chase was at the confer
ence room of the Supreme Court, in ac-
cordance with previous arrangement
TO hear the argument in the YerRer
case. A large number OF auditors were
present. Mr.. Philip Phillips opened
the case by reading the petition Of Ed
ward. Yerger, addressed to 8. P. Chese,
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Of
the United States, stating that he Is o
citizen of Mississippi, and is now lille.
gally imprisoned and detained in the
county OF Kinds. Under order of Gen.
Ames, a Military Commission had been
constituted to try him for the alleged
crime of murder. To this he objects
for the reason that he Is not in any way
connected with the army or navy Of the
United States, or militia, nor is be
Rmenable in any way to the military
authorities on land or the naval forces.
He says his trial Is under what is com.
monty known as the reconstruction
act, and claims his rights under the
constitution; as an American citizen he
asks that writ of ha6eGs corpus be Is.
sued for his relief. He further states
that in the State of Mississippi, where
the alleged offense was committed,
courts OF justice have been open since
1865; that there iS no Obstruction to the
process of courts, and that Justice ls
generally unimpeded.
Mr.. Phillips read q copy OF the indict.
ment on which Yerger was arraigned
before the military commission: IL
charges him withthel murder of Capt.
Joseph G.. Crane, of the Comniissary
Department of the United States army,
op the 8th of June, 1869, the weapon
being a knife. Mr.. Phillips said the ap.
plication was based on these facts. De
prived Of his liberty in violation of the
Constitution of the United States, the
petitioner asked to be discharged under
o writ OF hdbenS c0Tp1S, 80 g.
Counsel then argued the question OF
Jurisdiction, quoting the Judiciary act
of 1889 to show that any one Of the J1s
tees of the Supreme Court, as well as
Judges of District Courts, shall have
power to grant writs of hG6eGs corpus.
The only restraining words Of the stat
ute are those which limit the applica-
ton of the writ to cases where persons
are in custody under or by, color OF
authority of the United States; or con-
mitted for trial under some court
The applicant being, arraigned by mill
itary power, he falls under the class of
persons in custody under or by color
Of authoritv of the United States. The
statute did not limit the exercise pow
er to any State or territory; it was con-
ferred on the Justices of the Supreme
Court, whose Jurisdiction was coexten-
siVe with the whole country.
Is seemed to be perfectly clear from
proper construction OF the act that IL
was not intended to limit the appltca-
ton of the writ to Judge of the ESu-
preme Court presiding in particular
circuit where the offense was commit
ted, or the Imprisonment took place.
He quoted the cases Of Merryman and
Edward A. Stephens, which happened
during the war, in support of his argu~
ment, Chief Justice fancy In one IN
stance, and Associate, Justtce wayne,
In the other, issuing writs of hG6e0S
corpus, the prisoners being confined In
Maryland. The case now before the
Chief Justice involved most serious
considerations including - personal
rights of, Citizens. It did more; Il IN
vOlved the integrity OF the Constitution
under the constitution were not for the
first time TO be found in that instru-
ment. These were inherited by the
people OF our country trom%the Magma
Oharta, which declared that no tree-
man shall be'taken.; imprisoned, out
lawed, ravistled or desponed OF hispro-
perty, nor shall sentence be passed on
in acceptance with the laws Of the land.
Onthe oath of April, 1902, when Geor-
pia ceded to the United States theite
ritory which constitutes part OF fthe
State of Mississippi, 1t was enacted
that the ordinance of 17ol! should be
and remain ia force In said territory.
These provisions were that the inhabt-
tants shouidI always1be entitled to the
benefits of the writ OF habepS corpus,
and the.right of trialIby Jury. When
Congress subsequently, provided Tor
the ORGANIZATION of, the Btate govefn-
mept, they declared this provision
should become partof the tundamental
law of the State. :Accordtngly 1ney
were placed In the Constitution OF Snn, nns,
Mr.. Philips them referred to4he
clenses of the Constitution of the Uni:
ted States relative to the fprotectioneoI oI
the rights oEthe citizen, and Proceeqeo
10 notice the opinion OF Attorney 9en-
eral Hoar in the Te1as WeaYse -!nol nnuF, :
der case, the reasons for considering a
military conmission a 9egel otganiza-
ton, and saying he could have no
doubt mat the nation can retain ,alter-
ritOfy and people, Withinthe grasp OF
war until relations OF peace can ps re,
established. Were these WordB asked
Mr.. Phillips, within the grasp OF war,
original or notf2 dConld, there be a
stronger expression to define the most
fragrant war than that term3 It was
NOT a constitutional and legal phrase.
The Attorney General explained that
the phrase alluded to by his brother
was a quotation from q friend who had
used it IN another argument
-Mr, Phillips, srebumtnR, n, SAID ne
,bonoht de expression had been: found
In some book on the laws of war. 1t
Was:sh6Fe7er,s entitled TO no oonsidera-
lion, because IT, did not express any
deinite idea here, nor was it warranted
bv, any interpretation OF constitutional
law, He then argued that war nolong'
er exists. Notwithstanding tns ..;aS nneT1J
of the Attorney General. As 2 question
ofrfact sthere could Sbeno doub6of this or
difference in honest minds. On the
oo,h of August, 1866, the President Is
Suei, a nroclamat tom declaetng the IN
arirfe4tion WhlohhadS ex1Bteo 1nsIeAas
al an end, as in other States accoEoing @
to proclamation OF April 1o9o. .. ~ ~
dar ami tranoiiility and civil anth2EiSy
eSist ia ana inE Ecpgh hout the Whoie l. rs
led States Of. Anerica.p FElort 20 -
IN December. 1855, the President Gaio1n
his message. the rebellion mas peen
suppressed and the people lately IN rs
beilion Yield obedience torIne ,auIhoElty
Of The United States with more prompt
ness and willingness than could rsa-
sonably be anticipated. The Leg1sLso IA
ture, too, as he showed declared tne
var over, The President and congress
acted in accord. 1t" was known tnat
Congress disputed the right OF the
President to take measures for the re-
construction of the Southern States,