The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1871-05-30

tary Commission, and II cant admit q
: question that the plaintiff could hay
been taken by civil officer before tn
courts and there trie, for any cOnspirac
Of which he had been guilty. The thir,
defense, which may have great inilr
r ence in the case, Is the statute OF limita
, tions of 1863 The seventh section {
that statute declares that no suit o
, prosecution, civil or criminal, shall b
maintained Tor any arrest or imprisOn
ment made, or other trespasses or wrong
, committed atany time during the rebellion
by authority Of tue President, unless lh
same should be commenced within tw,
years next alter the arrest, Imprisonment
trespass or wrongs complained Of A
the time this statute was passed
We were engaged In great ciyi
war. In such war perhaps, more thai
any other, within the influence Of the
passions enacted by such conflicts, and
the zeal Of even the officers and sol.
diers who COmbatted for the maintenance
OF the government, il was ioreseen
that the private rights Of both per
sou and property might be invaded; thai
wrongs might DO committed, for which
under the constitution and law the per
son committing might be called to answer
before the courts OF the country. VIZ
contend that there might be wrongs fOl
which there w0nld not be absolute In.
demnity still II was but an aCt of Justice
to those thus subject 10 prosecutions tC
declare that remedies should be sought
for through these courts within d certain
time, provided II were not so short rs In
elect to destroy the remedy itself. The
acts for which actiSns were to be brought
within II limited time were those
done under the authority of the
Chief Magistrate Of the Nation,
the COmmander.ln.Chieiof It's armies.
cannot doubt, therefore, 1t was competent
for Congress that oil such action should
DO commenced within u reasonable time
after the wrongs were committed Tho
limitation prescribed by Congress was two
years, thus giving ample opportunity for
the enforcement Of any rights created or
protected by the Constitution or laws. II
has always been decided that this is 0
matter resting with the Legislature, and
the only question Is whether the limlta.
tiOn Is within the control of Congress,
this action having been originally brought
In one Of the Courts Of the State. But
States might take different view of the
subject, and In some, where rebelliOus sen.
liments are paramount, the Legislature
might cause actions against the agents Of
the Government without Limitation.
There must, therefore, bo an au.
thOrlty cOextenslve with the ma.
tion, which could create u uni.
form rule, and 10 Congress only is. such
power given from the nature ofthe case.
think, therefore the statute Of Limitation
Of 1858 Is obligatory 10 this case. The
action was commenced on the 18th of
March, 1853. Two years would go back TO
the 18Th Of March, 1865. The plaintiff
was released On the 10th of April, 1866,
and what may be said Of his ability 10
commence suit prior 10 that time, alter.
wards his power was complete. lie waited
I'LL the 18th OF March, 1868. 1t Is suid
that the Imprisonment was continued till
October and consequently that two years
not having passed from It's termination TO
tue commencement of the suit, the ac.
ton included the whole term, notwilh.
standing part Of tho imprisonment
occurred more than two years before; but
II seems TO me that the act OF Congress
was Intended to say to any who betrayed
his nation II should be at his own risk.
There Is no saving In the statute for i'm.
prlsonment or any other cause. The only
remaining question, II the Jury shall find
q verdict for the plaintiff, is, what amount
of compensation shall be allowed, and
that rests exclusively with the Jury. The
principal defendants were officers Of the
army, acting under the President, and the
military common were detailed as such
by their official superiOrs, by whom Obedi.
ence was exacted. 1t was at time when
much alarm was ielt by the public. Evi.
denCe has been introduced by the defend.
ants To show that a reasonable conspiracy
existed to give aid ind comfort 10 the
rebels hostile TO the government, and that
their purpose was TO involve the whole Of
society," Il possible. The military author.
tiles had knowledge Of this scheme, and
believed II indispensable TO arrest the lead.
ers, among the rest the plaintiff. Whether
the evidence would Justify correction be.
fore a civil court need not be stated. 1t |
Is clear that the defendants were perform. |
ing their duty, and that the conduct OF the
defendants was approved by the highest
officers of that nation. All these circun.
stances should be carefully considered.
SO, too, II you should believe the acts of
the defendants were done without SUN.
cient excuse, as the Court views the law
lnl evidence, the plaintiff can recover
damages for the Imprisonment For
That he Is entitled Ia compensation that
would include, certainly, a peCuniary loss
thereby sustained, as well directly us in.
lirectly II will be observed that the
charge Of the Court Inns been rather an
exposition Of the law than n commentary
ln the facts, and us that llas necessarily
jeen so, the material facts are not In the
and the question Is what the
aw Is upon these facts. The facts In dis.
quito tile Court leave to you; the law you
will take from the Court. commend
he case to your careful, candid, and in.
eliigent consideration"
The jury then retired at about six,
With instructions to return sealed yer.
liCt II they did not agree before o'clock,
It which time the Court adjourned.
Plot for RevO OlutiOn Ia Belgium.