Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1886-02-24
CONCERNING nARuaL LAW
EDrToB Posr lsrxrIIexxcrK:

sVosA AliNaIl iAH-Ul afLlzl law and
kindred subjects. During The lull ir
business have paid little attention
TO these topics, an upon the suthori-
ties eau state the following conclu-
stons- get these conclusions from
the celebrated case decided by the
Supreme Court Of the Cuited States.
known as Ex parte Milligan," 4
Wall, from page 2 to 143, inclusive.
Ihls is the case cited by the Anti
Chinese Congress lately assem- bled at
Portland, Oregon. By the way, il
does net supper: single proposition
announced by that audaeious assem-
bly,. This will be manifest TO any
one who will carefully reao the case
Frst-Military law is the law for
the government of the land and
naval forces Of the United States and
of the militia while in actual service.
Ii is to be found IN acts of Congress
prescribing rules and articles Of war,
or otherwise providing for the gov
ernment OF the national forces Ii
acts without the Intervention OF q
jury, and its Judgments, when they
indict punishment short Of death,
need but the supervising approval OF
the commanding General This 10
the geaeral rule. In case Of the pro-
posed indiction Of the death penalty.
and 10 other exceptional cases. the
judgment of the military tribunal
must have the approval of the Presi
dent, who is Commander-in-Chief OF
the military establishment of the
United states. h is almost needless
TO say that this system is an elabo-
rate aud well-understooa system of
laws, but it strictly includes within
its jurisdiction only military persons.
We have an example of its jurisdic-
tioa in the recent trial of q soldier in
this city for misconduct.
Second-Martial Law, such as we
have had in this city, may be pro-
claimed or established, If you please,
first. by the President of the United
States, or, second, by the Governor
of State or Territory. In the first
Instance, the Congress OF the United
States, IL 10 session, is the directing
or authorizing power in the second
place. the Legislature OF the State or
Territory is the authorizing power.
If not in session, the duty and re-
sponsibiity is thrown upon the
executive of the State or Territory
1t was decided many years ago, in
the case of Luther VS.. Barden, by
the Supreme Court Of the United
States. that when the executive of q
State-and the same is true of Ter
ritoty-decided that the exigency
had arrived in which it was neces-
ssry for the public safety to declare
law, such decision was final,
and no court would review it or
question its correctness. Every o1e,
with moments reflection. will &C
knowledge the soundness Of this de-
cisiOn for all, as good citizens, are
bound TO act upon this decision, and
there could be no safety to life or
property could its correctness be
questioned Certain facts must be
found by the executive, and certain
preliminary matters attended to. be
fore martial law is proclaimed as a
matter OF prudential safety. but they
are not absolutely essential TO the
validity of the proclamation or the
safety of the w-abiding and obedi
ent citizen. First, there ought to be
a proclamation that all unlawful as
semblages and al riotous gatherings
disperse; second. there ought to be
solemn finding that the ordinary ju-
dicisl and ministerial instrumental
ties are unavailing to preserve order
and secure the public peace by the
enforcement of law. With these,
martial law is a power all must obey
1t has behind it the power of the
county. the power of The Territory
and the supreme power of the law
abiding forces of this great Govern
meat That body of men who at
tempts the overthrow of law in
America undertakes q task neve. yet
accomplished. A million lives will
be sacrificed before the supremacy of
law can be overthr0wn.
This celebrated case which | have
before me affords no consolation to the
deluded men who quote 1t. Its doc
trine is in direct conflict with theirs.
II vindicstes the validity OF martial
law. II recognizes the right-yea,
the duty-to arrest and imprison, by
military order, persons whose being
at large is dangerous TO the public
peace. But il does deny the right Of
military commissions to try persons
not IN the military or naval service
of the Government this and moth
ing more.
The case was this Lambdin p.
Miiligan, Q citizen of Indiana, In
1864, was arrested by order OF Gen
Alvin r. Hovey, commanding the
military district OF Indiana. On the
2ist day of october he was brought
before q military commission, con-
vened at Indianapolis by order Of
General Hovey, tried on certain
charges and specifications, found
guilty and sentenced TO be hanged,
and the sentence, after having been
by the President, was or
dered to he executed on the 18th day
OF May, 1865. The question sub
tutttSd w tuc Guy cthS Coutt NoS tAS
validity OF this trial and Judgment
by q military commission. That
Court held 1t TO be without sanction
of law, and discharged him on hs-
bess corpus HIS arrest AID impris-
onment By military order was CON-
men led, but his trial by such sri-
bunal. ander the facts. held uncon-
stitutional
Ia conclusion. let me say that Hon
b +. Butler. whom the Anti Chinese
Congress refer 10. was special coun-
I, ei for the Government in this case,
and exhausted ell of his great pow
ers in 40 srgcmeut TO show the right
tulness, the constitutional validity
snd justice Of that military trial and
c pndemnAtion. NINpEx.