Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-09-30
THE MILL1GAN CASE

was q tried in Indiana In 1864, by q
military commission, and taken before
the Supreme Court on writ of hdbeGs
corpus in 1866. He was clearly guilty Of
the charges against him, and was tried
while the war was in progress. He had
never been in the land or naval service
of the United States nor in the COnfed-
crate service. The point presented TO
the Supreme Court was not bis guilt or
innocence, his guilt was clear. Justice
Davis said, in delivering the opinion of
the court:
One Of he plainest constitutional privileges
violated when he was tried by q SQUIRT not
ordained and established by Congress and
good behavior, according 10 the Constitution
vesting the Judicial power Of the United states
in such courts az Congress may from line TO
time appoint.
1t was not unlawful because of the
character of the judges; but the COnsti-
tuition provides that "the trial of all
crimes except of impeachments shall be
by jury" that "no person shall be held
to answer for a capital OF otherwise in
famous crime unless on presentment by
a grand jury, except in case arising in
the land and naval forces, or in the
militia when in actual service in time Of
H1Af VA EAAAAk AlAAA1AH AAgA ~ ALAAAHEA VI
life, liberty or property without due
course Of law" and again: Email GRIM
inal prosecutions, the accused shall en-
joy the right to a speedy and public
trisl by m impartial Jury, of the State
or district where the, crime shall have
been committed, to be informed OF the
nature of the accusation, to be confronted
with the witnesses against him. and TO
compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his behalf" The court
tnat when the hdbeds corpus
may be suspended, the Constitution
does not say that the citizen to whom
is denied may be tried otherwise than
by due course Of common law. They
the suspension to one great right,
and left the others u~ndisturbed.D (EI
pdrts Mi2ligan ( WdHdce.) Lincoln had
this case under advisement for months,
not to violate Constitutional
right by approving it without reflection.
its approval, he was ssassinated,
and Mr.. Johnson promptly approved the
sentence. (See Opinion Of the Court
AIhus he has condemned IL; the SUI
preme Court has condemned it. 1t was
a ruthless violation of the right Of the
a dangerous and violent in
AAn-IAAEAl VI lAt AAWo VI 70tAtl-. 6ul4
a precedent as would leave no bulwark
lf freedom.
his DEFENSE-TOO THIN
Mr.. Johnson deeeives the people IN
his defense when he says: Columbia
Speech
Washington was q military amp under
martial law, the writ OF hGteus corpus sus-
and forts and guns surrounding H.
The war had been practically over for
two months, rebels engaged IN the
pursuits Of peace, the forts grass-grown,
md their guns silent and cold. and
but the fading marks Of war To
ell where il had been. The civil courts
open for speedy redress Of all
wrongs, and trial OF all causes, and pun
shmenC Of all crimes. The ha6ens cor
'us was not suspended, for he specially
suspended it, and IN doing 50 said: SIT J
las been before suspended in such
asses" Such cases. Such a murderl
The history Of civilized nations furnish
$ no parallel for it; and while savage
keep no archives, they have no
traditions that furnish a precedent for