Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1875-10-13
Limits Of Military Law.

a case has just been tried in the United
States Coutt, at Rutland, before Judge Ma
lhaniel Shipman, which has some point, Of
public interest. In June, 1864, Andrew J.
Bean, of Manchester, n. H., acted as broker
in procuring two substitutes from Canada,
who were enlisted in the United States
army. For his service he received 500
each from the two parties for whom he pro-
cured the substitutes The parties enlisted
deserted the day after enlistment. Gilman
Henry and Daniel l.. Beckwith, provost
marshal and deputy marshal, afterward
arrested Bean. and held him in the state
prison at Windsor, from November 1861, till
April 1865. The marshal offered to release
him at any time, on the payment of the $500.
But Bean declined therelsaSe ON such terms,
and was, in 1865, handed over to the civil
authorities, aud released, The plaintiff
brought suit against Henry aud Beckwith
for damages for illegal arrest and confne-
ment. The defendants pleaded the acts Of
Congress, by which the action of the military
authorities during the war was validated 10y
the government.
Judge Shipman charged the jury, first,
that the acts Of the d ifenlants were not COW
cred by the authority and approval of the
President, and therefore not justified by the
acts of Congress; and, second, that theplain-
tiff was not liable TO arrest under military
law. Martial law did not exist in this state
at the time Of the arrest, and Bean was not
subject to military law. The arrest and
imprisonment were therefore illegal, and the
only question for the jury was to find the
amount of damages. They were to b. just
damages, recompensing the plaintiff for his
expenses for his suffering in body and
mind for disgrace aud separation from his
family for the loss of personal liberty, and
the immediate and necessary losses OF bust
ness. And If the defendants were influenced
by malice, they were 10 be punitive damages
in such a sum as would punish them for the
malice, aud teach them and others the i'm
portance of refraining from similar conduct
The case was given to the jury at noon, and
on the assembling of the court in the after
noon, they brought in verdict for the plain
| tiff of $4,000
This decision aud result will settle tn,
fact that this is government of law, anc
that nobody can be arrested and punished
by the military officers for any oitenc,
against law, where martial law does not pre-
vail. The ideas of many people were very
much mixed, during the prevalence of the
rebellion, on this subject. 1t was common
sentiment that the military power of the
government might take Surveillance of th'
actions aud expressions of men who wer'
not in the military service, or subject to il
laws. But at no time were the civil law
silent or suspended in New England, or il
the states not Immediately concerned in the
rebellion. Any military officers who i'm
| agined they were, or exercised the military
power TO deprive individuals not amenabl'
to them, of their rights under the laws, ar,
| liable to heavy damages. II is very easy fol
excited aud enthusiastic army officers, con
scions Of great military force behind them
to infringe upon personal rights aud liber
ties, and trample upon the civil authority
This case win dispose of a good deal of un
healthy sentiment, aud while it define,
the limits of the military power, will exalt
the essential sovereignty of the civil law.