glst'7llonottit futtilitienctt; PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY fly H. O. SMITH & 00. 11. G.- SMITH. TERMS—Two Dollars per annum, payable all oases In advance. OFFICE—SOUTHWEST CORNER or CENTRE SQUARE. wrAil letters on business should be ad dressed to H. G. finirrn & Co. fflottvm. WHIP•PO•WILL 11Y nimaer, ST. CLAIR. I always loved the twilight hour, And many times I've crept, And, pushing back the tangled vines From which the dewdrops wept, Stood almost breathless with my hands Clasped on the window sill To listen to th it strange bled, Cry out its " II cannot toll you why It Is Such memories will awake; Nor why this spell creeps o'er me I nave no power to break, I only know its faintest note My very pulse will thrill, And happier clays come back to me At itsstrange whip-p0 , ,v111." It was a night, long, long ago, I cannot tell how long The future was before I kuow, And heart uud pulse beat strong ; She stood beside me and our hands Were chuiptil upon the sill; And we bent our heads to listen To the strange " whip-po•will." I'm going to traverse distant lauds, To stand where Arne flows; To tread proud Venice's princely halls; And tiwitzer's Alpine Knows; And when I come you'll be my wife? I felt toypulses thrill, As that bird caught her low response And echoed buck "I will." I stood by Arne's moonlit wave And saw proud Venice's walls, And saw the glowing sunset hood I towers and lutlls And then I came to Claim her heart, . . But It, was cold uud od,111; Ono mourner lingered by her grave Thal, atrango, htrange " whip pn•w11I!" I alumd alone, alone to•nlght— And nul ere is asleep; it look upon • Lhat tombstone while, 'Men bow my head and weep, tio Mlle hand lm clumped In inlglu • - Upon the wiudow slll. No BOUIlli tub painful killenee brealim, Have that unu whlp•po•will." piotuannuo. MILITARY TRIALS OF CIVILIANS. Arqullu•ul of Hull. Jeremiah N. Distric t before the Supremo Court. or Alm 11111• dell MOWN. ill the ilmilanit Compirstry irsute. In September, ISO I, 1,. P. Milligan, W. A. Bowles, Stephen Horsey, and others, were arrested and brought before a military commission at Indianapolis, Indiana, charged with being members .of the order of "American Knights," .or " Sons of Liberty," in league with .armed rebels, and with having conApir ,ed to release the rebel prisoners of war .eonlined in the United States military prisons at Indianapolis, Chicago, and Rock Island. The three parties named, after a protracted trial, were found guilty of the charges and specifications preferred against them, and condemned to death. The findings and sentence were approVed by the President and promulgated by the War Department on the 2,1 of May, 111115 c and the 19th day of the same month was fixed for the execution. On the 111th of May, however, they applied by petition to the circuit court of the United States for the .district of Indiana (Judges Davis and Mellonald) for a writ of habeas corpus, .or for an order of discharge, under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1813, ,entitled, "An act relating to habeas .empus, and regulating judicial proceed dugs in certain cases." The Judges of the circuit court were divided in opin don upon this application, and certified the following questions, on which they 41111.9 red, to the Supreme Court for de clslou 1. "On the firda staled In said mtition and exhibits, ought a writ of imbeds corpus to be issued according to tha prayer of said petition ?" 2. "Oti the facts stated in said petition and exhibits, ought the said parties to be I ischarged front I . llBteti)'. UM In said petition prayed?" ti. "Whether, upon the fuels stated in said petition and exhibits, the military commis slot' mentioned therein had Jurhullation lo• gaily to try and sentence said parties in lind form as in said petition and exhibits Is stated?" After the action of 11w circuit court, certifying the case to the Supreme Court fur final decision, the President commuted the sentence of the petition. en to hnprlsonment. for life. The argument of these lillUalollB, which commenced on the lith and terminated oil the Mit of March, 1866, was conduetod on the part of the petitioners by J. H. McDonald, Esq., of Indiana, Hon. J. A. Garfield, of Ohio, lion. J. S. Black, of Pennsyl vania, and David Dudley Field, of New York; and on behalf of the United States by B. F. Butler, Esq., of Massa chusetts, Hon. 11. Statiberry, of Ohio, and Hon. James Speed, Attoruey•Gen eral of the United States. The argument of Judge Black, which .is pronounced by good lawyeie every where to be one of the finest ever made +before any court In the United States, was as follows: May it please your Honors : I am not afraid that you will under nate the importance of this case. It eon .eerns the rights of the whole people. .Such questions have generally been :settled by arms. But since the begin ming of the world no battle lies ever been lost or won upon which the liber ties of a nation were so distinctly staked as they are on the result of this argu ment. The pen that writes the judg ment of the Court, will be mightier for good or for evil than any sword that ever was wielded by mortal arm. As might be ex peeled front the nature of the subject, it has been a good deal discussed eisewhere,in legislative Isadies, in public assemblies, and in the news paper press of the country. But there it has been mingled with interests 'and feelings not very friendly to a correct conclusion. Here we are in a higher atmosphere, where no passion can dis turb the judgment or shake the even balance in which the scales of reason are held. Here it is purely a judicial question; and I can speak for my col leagues as well as myself, when I say that we have no thought to suggest which we do not suppose to be a fair element in the strictly legal judgment 'which you are required to make up. In performing the duty assigned to 'me In the case, I shall necessarily refer to the mere rudiments of constitutional .law ; to the most` commonplace topics .of history, and to those plain rules of justice and right which pervade all our institutions. I beg your honors to be lieve that this is not done because I think that the Court, or any member of it, is less familiar with these things than I am, or less sensible of their value; but simply and only because, according to my view of the subject, there is absolutely no other way of deal ing with it. If the fundamental prat , elpies of American liberty are attacked, and we are driven behind the inner walls of the Constitution to defend them, we can repel the assault only with those same old weapons which our an cestors used a hundred years ago. You must not think the worse of our armor because it happens to be old-fashioned • and looks a little rusty from king disuse. The ease before you presents but a oiskple point, and that an exceedingly plaln.one. it is not enciimbered with say cif those vexed questions that might he expected to arise out of a great war You are not called upon to decide what ; kind of rule a military commander may impose upon the inihabltants of a hostile country which he occupies as a conquer or, or what punishment he may inflict upon the soldiers of his own army or the followers of his camp ; or yet how he may deal with civilians in At beleaguered city or other place in a state of actual siege, which he Is required to .defend against a public enemy. This contest covers no such ground as that. The men whose acts we complain of erected A. J. STEINMAN VOLUME 68. themselves into a tribunal for the trial and punishment of citizens who were connected in no way whatever,with the army or navy. And this they did In the midst of a community whose social and legal organization had never been disturbed by any war or ins.urrection, where the courts were wide open, where judicial process was executed every day without interruption, and where all the civil authorities, both State and national, were in the full exercise of their functions. My clients were dragged before this strange tribunal, and aftera proceeding, which it would be mere mockery to call a trial, they were ordered to be hung. The charge against them was put into writing and is found on this record, but you will not be able to decipher its meaning. The relators were not accused ' of treason ; for no act is imputed to them which, if true, would come within the definition of that crime. It was not conspiracy under the act of 1861; for all concerned In this business must have known that conspiracy was nota capital. offense. I f the commissioners were able to read English, they could not help but see that it was made punishable even by fine and imprisonment, only upon con dition that the parties should first be convicted before a circuit or district court of the Unite States. The Judge advocate mus have meant to charge them with some offense un known to the laws, which ho chose to make capital by legislation of his own, and the commissioners were so pro- . _ foundly ignorant as to think that the legal innocence of the parties made no difference In tile case. I do not say what Sir „James Mackintosh said of a similar proceeding: that the trial was a mere conspli•acy to commit will fulrnur der upon three innocent men. The com missioners are not on trial ; they are absent and undefended ; and they are entitled to the benefit of that charity which presumes them to be wholly un acquainted with just principles of na tural Justice, and quite tillable to com prehend either the law or the facts of a criminal cause. Keeping the character of the charges in mind, let us come at once to the simple question upon which the court below divided in opinion : Had the commissioners jurisdiction—were they Invested with legal authority to try the relators and put them to death for the offense of which they are accused? We answer, no; and therefore the whole proceeding, from beginning to end, was utterly null and void. On the other hand, it is absolutely necessary for those who oppose us to assert, and they do as sert, that the commissioners had com plete legal jurisdiction both of the subject•matter and of the parties, so that their judgment upon the law and the facts is absolutely conclusive and binding, not subject to correction nor open to inquiry in any court whatever. Of these two opposite views, you must adopt one or the other; for there Is no middle ground on which you can pos sibly stand. I need not say, (for it is the law of the horn books), that where a court, (what ever may be its power hi other respects,) presumes to try a man for an offense of which It has no right to take judicial cognizance, all its proceedings in that case are null and void. If the party is acquitted, he cannot plead the acquittal afterwards in bar of another prosecu tion; ll' he is found guilty and sen tenced, he Is entitled to be relieved from the punishment. If a circuit court of the United States should undertake to try a party for an offense clearly within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State courts, the judgment could have no effect. It' a county court in the Interior of a State should arrest an officer of the Federal navy, try him, and order him to be hung for some offence against the law of nations, committed upon the high seas or In a foreign port, nobody would treat such a judgment other wise than with mere derision. The Federal courts have jurisdiction to try ofilinses against tile laws of the United States, and the authority of the State courts is confined to the punishment of acts which are made penal by State laws. It follows that where the accu sation does not amount to an offense against the law of either the State or the Federal Government, no court can have Jurisdiction to try it. Suppose for example that the judges of this Court should organize themselves into a tri bunal to try a man for witchcraft, or heresy, or treason against the Confed erate States of America, would anybody say that your judgment had the least validity. I care not, therefore, whether the re lators were intended to be charged with treason or conspiraoyl or with some of fense of which the law takes no notice. Either or any way, the men who un dertook to try them hail no jurisdiction of the sul&ct•mal ter. Nor had they jurisdiction of the parties. It is not pretended that this was a ease or Impetwhwent, or a case arising in the land or naval Acmes. It is either clothing at all or else it is a simple crime against the United States, conintitteti by private individuals not in the public service, civil or military. Persons standing in that relation to the Government are answerable for th 6 offense which they may commit only to the civil courts of the country. Sosayslthe Constitution, as we read it; and the act of Congress of .11Iareh 4, 1803, which was passed with express referenee to persons precisely In the situation of these men, declares that they shall be delivered up for trial to the proper civil authorities There being no jurisdiction of the subject-matter or of the parties, you are bound to relieve the petitioners. It Is as much the duty of a judge to protect the innocent as it is to punish the guilty. Suppose that the Secretary of some department chould take it Into his head to establish an ecclesiastical tribunal here hi the City of Washingto, composed of clergymen " organized to convict" everybody who prays after a fashion inconsistent with the supposed safety of the 040. If he would select the members with a punier regard to the odium theologicum, I think J mild in sure him a commission that would hang every man and woman who might be brought before it. But would you, the judges of the land, stand by and see their sentences executed? No; you would Interpose your writ of prohibi tion, your habeas corpus, or any other process that might be at your command, between them and their victims. And you would do that for precisely the reason which requires your interven tion here—because religious errors, like political errors, are not crimes which anybody in this country has jurisdic tion to punish, and because ecclesiastical commissions, like military commis sions, are not among the judicial insti tutions of this people. Our fatherelong ago cast them both aside among the rubbish of the dark ages; and they in tended that we, their children, should know them only that we might blush and shudder at the shameless injustice and the brutal cruelties which they wero allowed to perpetrate In other times and other countries, . _ But our friends on the other side are not at all impressed with these views. Their brief corresponds exaotly with the doctrines propounded by the Attor ney General, in a very elaborate official paper which he published last July, upon this same subject. He then avow ed it to be his opttled and deliberate opinion that the military might "take and kill, try and execute" (I use his own words) persons who had no sort of con nection with the army or navy. And though this be done in the face of the open courts, the judicial authority, ac cording to him, are utterly powerless to prevent the slaughter which may thus be carried on. That is the thesis which the Attorney General and his assistant counselors are to maintain this day, if they can maintain it, with all the power of their artful eloquence. We, on the other band, submit that a person not in the military ornaval service cannot be punished at all until he has had afair, open, publiotrial before an impar• tial jury, in an ordained and established court, to which the )urisdlcgon has been given by law to try )aim foF that specific offense. There is our proposition, Ile twesit the ground we take and the ground they occupy there is and there can he no ccanpremlse. xt is one way or the other, Our proposition ought to be received as true without any argument to sup port it; because if that, or something precisely equivalent to it, be not a part of our law, this is not what we have always supposed it to be, a free coun try. Nevertheless, I take upon myself the burden of showing affirmatively not only that It is true, but that it is immovably fixed in the very frame work of the Government, so that it is utterly impossible to detach it without destroying the whole political structure under which we live. By removing it youjdestroy the life of this nation as completely as you would destroy the life of an individual by cutting the heart out of his body. I proceed to the proof. In the first place, the self-evident truth will not be denied that the trial and punishment of an offender against the Government is the exercise of Ind!. dal authority. That Is a kind of au thority which would be lost by being diffused among the masses of the peo ple. A judge would be no judge if everybody else were a judge as well as lie. Therefore in every society, how ever rude or however perfect its organi zation the Judicial authority is always committed to the hands of particular persons, who are trusted to use it wisely and well; and their authority is exclu sive ; they cannot share it with others to whom it has not been committed. Where, then, is the judicial power in this country? Who are the depositaries of it here? Tho Federal Constitution answers that question in very plain words, by declaring that "the judicial power of Ow United Slates shallbe vested in one Supreme Court, and in such in ferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Congress has, from time to time, ordained and established certain and ferior courts; and In them, together with the one Supreme Court to which they are sub ordinate, is vested all thej udicial power, properly so called, which the United States can lawfully exercise. That was the compact made with the General Government at the time It was created. The States and the people agreed to be- stow upon that Government a certain portion of the Judicial power which otherwise would have remained in their own hands, but gave It on a solemn trust and coupled the grant of It with this express condition, that it should never be used in;ply way but one; that is, by means of orflained and established courts. Any person, therefore, who undertakes to exercise judicial power In any other way not only violates the law of the land, but he treacherously tramples upon the most important part of that sacred covenant which holds these States together. May it please your honors, you know, and I know,and everybody else knows, that it was the intention of the men who founded this Republic to put the life, liberty, and property of every per son In It under the protection of a regu lar and permanent judiciary, separate, apart, distinct from all other branches of the Government, whose sole and•ex elusive business Rshould be to distribute Justice among -the people according to the wants and needs of each individ ual. It was to consist of courts, always open to the complaint of the injured, and always ready to hear cinalual accu• sations when founded upon probable cause ; surrounded with all the machi nery necessary for the investigation of truth, and clothed with sufficient power to carry their decrees into execution. In these courts it was expected that judges would sit who would be upright, - honest, and sober men, learned in the laws of their country, and lovers of jus tice from the habitual practice of that virtue; independent because their sala ries could not be reduced, and free from party passion because their tenure of office was for life. Although this would place them above the clamors of the mere mob and beyond the reach of Executive Influence, it was not Intended that they should be wholly irresponsible. For any willful or corrupt violation of their duty , they are liable to be impeached; and they cannot escape the control of nu en lightened public opinion, for they must sit with open doors, listen to full discus sion and give satisfactory reasons for thejudgments they pronounce. In or dinary tranquil times the citizen might feel himself safe under a judicial system so organized. ljut our wise forefathers knew that tranquility was not to be always an ticipated in a republic; the spirit of a free people is often turbulent. They ex pected that strife would rise between classes and sections, and even civil war might come, and they supposed that in such times judges themselves might not be safely trusted in criminal cases— especially in prosecutions for political offenses, where the whole power of the Executive is arrayed against the ac cused party. All history proves that public officers of any government when they are engaged in a severe struggle to retain their places, : become bitter and ferocious, and hate those who oppose them, even in the most legitimate way, with a rancor which they never exhibit towards actual crime. This kind of ma lignity vents itself in prosecutions for political offenses, sedition, conspiracy, libel, and treason, and the charges are generally founded upon the information of hireling spies and common delators, who make merchandise of their oaths, and trade in the blood of their fellow men. During the civil cOmmotions in England, which lasted from the begin ning of the reign of Charles I to the revolution of 14Hii, the best men and the purest patriots Quit ever and by the hand of the public executioner. Judges were made the instruments for inflicting the most merciless sentences on men, the latchet of whose shoes the ministers that prosecuted them were not worthy to stoop down and unloose. Let me say here, that nothing has oc curred in the history of this country to justify the doubt of judicial integrity which our forefathers seem to have felt On the contrary, the highest compli ment that has ever been paid the Ameri can bench, is embodied in this simple fact ; that if the executive officers of this Government have ever desired to take away the life or the liberty of a citizen contrary to law, they have not come into the courts to get it done, they have gone outside of the courts, and stepped over the Constitution, and created their own tribunals, composed of men whose gross ignorance, and sup ple subservience could always be relied on for those base uses to which no judge would ever lend himself. But the framers of the Constitution could act only upon the experience of that coun try whose history they kpew most about, and there they saw the brutal ferocity of Jeffreys and Soroggs, the timidity of (-Wilford, and the base venality of such men as Saunders and Wright. It seemed necessary therefore, not only to make the Judiciary as per fect as possible, but to give the citizen yet another shield against the wrath and malice of his Government. To that end they could think of no better pro• vision than a public trial before an Im partial jury. I do pot assert that the Jury trial is au infallible mode of ascertaining truth. Like everything human, MIAs its imper fections. I only say that it is the best protection for innocence and the surest mode of punishing guilt that has yet been discovered, It has borne the test of a longer experience, and borne it better than any other legal institution that ever existed amqng men. England owes more of her freedom, her grandeur, and her prosperity to that, than to all other causes put together. It has had the approbation not only of those who lived under it, but of great thinkers who looked at it calmly from a distance,'and judged it impartially: Montasquieu and De Tocqueville speak of it with an admiration as rapturous as Coke and Blackstone. Within the present century the moot enlightened states of continen tal Europe have transplanted it into their countries; and no people ever adopted it once and were after wards willing to part with it. It was only in 1830 that an interference with it in Belgium provoked a success ful insurrection which permanently di vldetj one kingdom into two. In the same year, the revolution of the Barri otkdes eve the right pf 441 by Jury to every ,terenchrcian. LANCASTER PA. WEDNESDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 27, 1867 Those colonists of this country who came from the British Islands brought this institution with them, and they re garded it as the most precious part of their inheritance. The immigrants from other places where trial by jury did not exist, became equally attached to it as soon as they understood what It was. There was no subject upon which all the inhabitants of the country Were more perfectly unanimous than 'they were in their determination to main= tain this great right unimpaired. An attempt was made to set it aside and substitute military trials in its place by Lord Dunmore, In Virginia, and Gen. Gage, in Massachusetts, accompanied with the excuse which has been repeat ed so often in late days, namely, that rebellion had made it necessary ; but it excited intense popular anger and every colony from New Hampshire to Geor gia, made common cause with the two whose rights had been especially in vaded. Subsequently the Continental Congress thundered It into the ear of the world, as an unendurable outrage, sufficient to justify universal insurrec tion against the authority of the Gov ernment which had allowed it to be • done. If the men who fought out our revo lutionary contest, when they came to frame a government for themselves and their posterity, had failed to insert a provision making the trial by Jury per petual and universal, they would have covered themselves all over with infamy as with a garment; for they would have proved themselves basely recreant to the principles of that very liberty of which they professed to be the special champ. ions. But they were guilty of no such treachery. They not only took care of the trial by Jury, but they regulated every step to be taken in a criminal trial. They knew very well that no people could he free under a government which had the power to punish without restraint.—,Hamilton expressed In the Federalist the universal sentiment of Ills time, when he said that the arbi trary power of conviction and punish ment for pretended offenses had been the great engine of despotism in all ages and all countries. The existence of such a power is utterly incompatible with freedom. The difference between a master and his slave consists only In this: that the master holds the lash In his hands and he may use IL without Legal restraint, while the naked back of Lime slave is bound to take whatever Is laid on it. But out' fathers were not absurd enough to put unlimited power in the hands of the ruler and take away the pTotection of law from the rights of In dividuals. It was not thus that they meant "to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity." They determined that not one drop of the blood which had been shed on the other side of the Atlantic, during seven centuries of contest with arbitrary power, should ground ; but the popular victory should be garnered up n this new government. Of all the great rights already won they threw not an atom away. They went over Magna Charta, the Petition of Bights, the 71111 of Rights, and the rules of the common law, and whatever was found there to favor Individual liberty they carefully inserted lu their own system, Improved by clearer expression, strengthened by heavier sanctions, and extended by a more universal application. They put all those provisions into the organic law, so that neither tyranny in the Execu tive nor party rage in the Legislature could change them without destroying the Government itself. Look for a moment at the particulars and see how carefully everything con :meted with the administration of pun l• Live Justice Is guarded. 1. No cx post facto law shall he pass ed. No man shall be answerable crim inally for any act which was not delined and made punishable as a crime by some law in force nt the time when the act was done. IL For au act which Is criminal he cannot be arrested without a Judicial warrant founded on proof of probable cause. He shall not be kidnapped and shut up on the mere report of some base spy who gathers the materials of a false accusation by crawling into his house and listening at the key-hole of his chamber door. 3. He shall not he compelled to testify against himself. He may be examined before he is committed, and tell his own story if he pleases ; but the rack shall be put out of sight, and even his con science shall not be tortured ; nor shall his unpublished papers be used against him, as was done most wrongfully in the case of Algernon E-Ildney. .1. Ho shall be entitled to a speedy trial; not kept In prison for an indefi nite time without the opportunity of vindicating his Innocence. 5. He shall be informed of the accusa tion, Its nature, andgrounds. The public accuser must put the charge into the form of a legal indictment, so that the party can meet it full in the face. U. Even to the Indictment lie need not answer unless a grand Jury, after hearing the evidence, shall say upon their oaths that they believe it to be true. 7. Then comes the trial, and it must be before a regular court, of competent jurisdiction, ordained and established for the State and district in which the crime was committed ; and this shall not be evaded by a legislative change in the district after the crime is alleged to be doup. }flyggllt or innocence shall be de termined by an Impartial jury. Those English wpilds are to be understood in their English sense, and they mean that the jurors shall be fairly selected by a sworn officer from among the peers of the party, residing within the local jurisdiction of the court. When they are called into the box he can purge the panel of all dishonesty, prejudice, per sonal enmity and ignorance, by a cer tain number of peremptory challenges, and as many more challenges as he can sustain by showing reasonable cause. 9. The trial shall be public and open, that no underhand advantage may be taken. The party shall be confronted with the witnesses against him, have compulsory process for his own wit nesses, and be entitled to the assistance of counsel in his defense. 10. After the evidence is heard and discussed, unless the jury shall, upon their oaths, unanimously agree to sur render him up into the hands of the court as a guilty man, not a hair of his head can be touched by way of punish ment. 11. After a verdict of guilty he Is still protected. No cruel or unusual punish ment shall be indicted, nor any pun ishment at all, except what is an nexed by the law to his offense. It cannot be doubted for a moment that if a person convicted of an offense not capital were to be hung on the order of a judge, such judge would be guilty of murder as plainly as if he should come down from the bench, tuck up the sleeves of his gown and let out the prisoner's blood with hisown hand. 12. After all is over, the law Continues to spread its guardianship around him. Whether he is acquitted or condemned he shall never again be molested for that offense, No man shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same cause. These rules apply to all criminal pros. ecutions. But, in addition to these, cer tain special regulations were required for treason—the one great political charge under which more innocent men have fallen than any other. A tyranni cal government calls every body a traitor who shows the least unwillingness to be a slave. The party in power never falls, when it can, to stretch the law on that subject by construction, so as to cover its honest and conscientious opponents. In the absence of a constitutional provision it was justly feared that statutes might be passed which would put the lives of the most patriotic citi zens at the mercy of the basest minions that skulk about under the pay of the Executive. Therefore a definition of treason was given in the fundamental law, and the legislative authority could not enlarge it to serve the purpose o f partisan malice. The nature and amount of evidence required to prove the crime Was also prescribed, so that prejudice and enmity might have no share in the conviction. And lastly, the punishme at was so limited that the property of the party could not be confiscatcd and used to reward the agents of his persecutors, or strip his family of their subsistence. If these provisiol a exist in full force, unchangeable and irrepealable then we are not hereditary bondsmen. Every Citizen may safely pursue his lawful calling in the open day ; and at night, if he is conscious of innocence, he may lie down in security and sleep the sound sleep of a freeman. I say they are in force, and they will remain in force. We have not surren dered them, and we never will. If the worst comes to the worst, we will look to the living God for His help, and de fend our rights and the rights of our children to the latit extremity. Those men who think we eau be subjected and objected to the condition of mere slaves are wholly mistaken. The great race to which we belong has not degenerated so fatally. But how am I to prove the existence of these rights? I donot propose to do it by a long chain of legal argumenta tion, nor by the production of numerous books with the leaves dog-eared and the Jpages marked. If it depended upon udicial precedents I think I could pro duce as many as might be necessary. If I claimed this freedom under any kind of prescription, I could prove a good long possession in ourselves and those under whom we claim it. I might be gin with Tacitus and show tow the contest arose lu the forests of Germany more than two thousand years ago; how the rough virtues and sound common sense of that people established the right of trial by jury, and thus started on a career which has made their prosperity the foremost race that ever lived in all the tide of time, The Saxons carried it to England, and were ever ready to defend it with their Wood. It was crushed out by the Danish invasion ; and all that they suffered of tyranny and oppression during the period of their subjugation resulted from the want of' trial by jury. If that had been conceded to them the reacticni would not have taken place w lull drove back the Danes to their frozen homes in the North. But those ruffian sea•kings could not under stand that, and the reaction came. Alfred, the greatest or revolutionary heroes and the wisest monarch that ever sat on a throne, made the first use of his power, after the Saxons restored it, to re-establish their ancient laws. He had promised them that he would, and he was true to them because they had been true to him, But It was not easily done; the courts' were opposed to it, for it limited their power—a kind of power that everybody covets—thepower to punish without regard to law. He was obliged to hang forty-four judges in one year for refusing to give his sub jects a trial by jury. When the historian says that he hung them, It isnot meant that he put them to death without a trial. He had them impeached before the grand conduit of the nation, the Wittenagemole, the parliament of that time.. During the subsequent period of Saxon (I°llllllloAm' no man on English soil was powerful' enough to refuse a legal trial to the meanest peasant. If any minister or any king, in war or in peace, had dared to punish a freeman by a tribunal of his own appointment, he would have roused the wrath of the whole population ; all orders of society would have resisted it; lord and vassal, knight and squire, priest and penitent, human and socman, master and thrall, copyholder and villein, would have risen I u one mass and burnt the offender to death in his castle, or followed him hi his flight and torn hint to atoms. It was again trampled down by the Nor man conquerors; but the evils re sulting front the want of it united all classes hi the eflbrt which compelled King John to restore it by the Great Charter. Everybody is familiar with the struggles which the English people, during many generations, made for their rights with the Plantaganets, the Tudors, and the Stuarts, and which ended finally In the revolution of It3BB, when the liberties of England were placed upon an Impregnable basis by the Bill of Eights. Many times the attempt was made to stretch the royal authority far enough to justify military trials ; but it never had more than temporary success. Five hundred years ago Edward II closed up a great rebellion by taking the life of its leader, the Earl of Lancaster, after try ing him before a military court. Eight, years later that same king, together with his lords and commons in Parlia ment assembled, acknowledged with shame and sorrow that the execu tion of Lancaster was a mere mur der, because the courts were open and he might have had a legal trial. Queen Elizabeth, for sun dry reasons affecting the safety of the State, ordered that certain offenders not of her army should be tried accord - log to the law martial. But she heard the storm of popular vengeance rising, and, haughty, imperious, self-willed as she was, she yielded the point; for she knew that upon that subject the Eng lish people would never consent to he trifled with. Stra Wird, as Lord Lieu tenant of Ireland, tried the Viscount Stormont More a military commission, and cut off his head. When impeach ed for it, he pleaded in vain that Ire land was in a state of Insurrection, that Stormont was a traitor, and the army would be undone if It could not defend Itself without appealing to the civil courts. The Parliament was deaf; the King himself could not save him ; he was condemned to suffer death as a traitor and murderer. Charles I Issued commissions to divers officers for the trial of his enemies according to the course of military law. I r rebellion ever was an excuse for such an act, he could surely have pleaded it; for there was scarcely aspotin his kingdom,from sea to sea, where the royal authority was not disputed by somebody. Yet the Parlia ment demanded in their petition of right, and the King was obliged to con cede, that all his commissions were illegal. James II claimed the right to suspend the operation of the penal laws —a power which the courts denied—but the experience of his predecessor taught him that he could not suspend any man's right to a trial. He could easily have convicted the seven bishops of any offense he saw fit to charge them with if he could have selected their judges front among the mercenary creatures to whom he had given commands in his army. But this he dared not do. He was obliged to send the bishops to a jury and endure the mortification of seeing them ac quitted. He, too, might have had re bellion for an excuse, if rebellion be an excuse. The conspiracy was already ripe which a few months afterwards made him an exile and an outcast ; he had reason to believe that the Prince of Orange was making his preparations on the other side of the channel to in vade the kingdom, where thousands burned tojoin him ; nay, he pronounced the bishops guilty of rebellion by the very act for which he arrested them. He had raised an army to meet the re bellion and he was on Hounslow Heath reviewing the troops organized for that purpose, i when he heard the great shout of joy that went up from Westminster Ha 1, was echoed back from Temple Bar, spread down the city and over the Thames, and rose from every vessel on the river—the simultaneous shout of two hundred thousand men for the triumph ofjustice and law. If it were worth the time, I might detain you by showing how this subject was treated by the French Court of Ces sation in Geoffroy's case, under the constitution of 1810, when a military judgment was unhesitatingly pronounc ed to be void, though ordered by the King, after a proclamation declaring Paris in a state of siege. Fas est ab hosts doeeri : we may lawfully learn some thing from our enemies—at all events we should blush at the thought of not being equal on such a subject to the courts of Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas, whose decisions my col league, General Garfield, has read and commented on. The truth is, that no authority exists anywhere in the world for the doctrine of the Attorney General. No judge or Jurist, no statesman or parliamendry sink into the fruits of every orator, on this or the other side of the water, sustains him. Every elementary writer from Coke to Wharton Is against him. All military authors who profess to know the duties of their profession admit theuiselves to be under, not above the laws. No book can be found in any library to justify the assertion that military tribunalsmay try a citizen at a place where the courts are open. When I say no book, I mean,of course, no book of acknowledged authority. I do not deny that hireling clergymen have often been found to disgrace the pulpit by trying to prove the divine light of kings and other rulers to govern as they please. It is true, also, that court sycophants and party hacks have many times written pamphlets, and perhaps large volumes, to show that those whom they serve should be allowed to work out their bloody will upon the people. No abuse of power is too flagrant to find its defenders among such servile creatu res. Those butchers dogs that feed upon garbage and fatten upon the offal of the shambles are al ways ready to bark at whatever Inter feres with the trade of their master. But this ease does not depend on au thority. It Is rather a question or fact than of law. I prove my right to at Hal by Jury Just as I would prove my title to an estate if I held In toy hand usolemu deed convey ing It to me, coupled with undeniable evidence of long and undisturbed pos• session under and according to the deed. There Is the charter by which we ehdin to hold It. It is called the Constitution or the United :States. It Is signed by the sacred name of George \ Vashing ton, and by thirty-nine other names, only less Illustrious than his. They represented every independent State then upon this continent, and each State afterwards ratified their work by a separate convention of its own people. Every Stale that subse quently Caine lu acknowledged that this was the great standard by which their rights were to he measured, Every man that has ever held °lnce in the .ountry, 6'olll thal. time to 11118, luts Laken au oath that hp would Hupport tud Muvl,iin IL through good rt.porL mid through evil. The Attorney]lent ral himself became a party to the Instru ment when he laid his hand upon the gospel ot' (led awl solemnly swore that he would give to nit , and every other citizen the full benefit of all It contains. What does It contain? 'Phis among other things: "The trial of all eriwos, except in cases of impeachment,shall be by Jury." Again : " No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise Infa mous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject fur the same offense to he twice put In jeopardy of life or limb, nor be commpelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor he deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." This Is not all ; another article de clares that "In all criminal prose• tuitions the unused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial .by an Impartial jury of the- State district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which dis trict shall have been previously ascer tained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation ; to be confronted with the witnesses against him ; to have compulsory pro cess for the witnesses In his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." Is there any ambiguity there ? If that does not signifst hat a Jury trial shall be the exclusive and only means of ascertaining guilt in criminal cases, then I demand to know what words or what collocation of words In the English language would have that effect? Does this mean that a fair, open, speedy, public trial by an impar tial fury shall be given only to those persons against whom no special grudge Is felt by the Attorney Uencral, or the Judge advocate, or the bead of a depart ment? Shall this Inestimable privilege be extended only to men whom the administration does not care to convict? Is IL confined to vulgar criminals, who commit ordi nary crimes against society, and shah it be denied to men who are accused of such ()muses us those for which Sydney and Russell were be headed, and Alive Lisle was hung, and Eliznheth Gaunt wns burnt alive, and John Bunyan was Imprison'ed fourteen years, and Baxter was whipped at the earl's tall, and Prynn had lIH enrn MIL oir No; the words or the ',institution aro all•entbruclog— N lifUad Ilnd general an t hu caning ;lir The trial of ALL crimes shall be by LL persons le, n.e,l shall enjoy hat privilege—and Nt) p.•rson shall be i'l , l to answer hl any other way. That would be soffielent without Hut there Is nnother eonsideru ion which gives It tenfold power. It is uulversal rule of construction, that gen eral words in any Instt umen t, though they may be weakened by enutner- Ilion, are always strengthened Ly ex uptions. Itertlis il.,:diempt. to (limner ale the particular eases in which men charged with criminal ofrenses shall he entitled to a Jury trial. It Is simply de• (dared that all shell have it. But that Is 'coupled with a statement of two specific exceptions; cases of impeach ment; anti cases arising In the land or naval forces. These exceptions strengthen theapplleadon of the general rule to all other• eases. Where the law giver himself has declared when and hi what circumstances you May depart from the general rule, you shall not presume to leave t hat onward path for other reasons, and make different ex ceptions. To exceptions the maxim Is always applicable, that cap ITSSIQ WILILY cal alkriUS. But we are answered that the judg ment under consideration was pro nounced in time of war, and it id therefore at least morally excusable, There may or there may not be something in that. I admit that the merits or demerits of any particular act, whether it involve a violation of the Constitution or not, depend upon the motives thatprompted it, the time, the occasion, and all the attending circum stances. When the people of this coun try come to decide upon the acts of their rulers, they will take all these things into consideration. But that presents the political aspect of the case with which, I trust, we have nothing to do here. I decline to discuss it. I would only say, in order to prevent misappre hension, that I think it is precisely In a time of war and civil commotion, that we should double the guards upon the Constitution. If the sanitary regula tions which defend the health of a city are ever to be relaxed, it ought certainly not to be done when pestilence is abroad. When the Mississippi shrinks with. In its natural channel, and creeps lazily along the bottom, the inhabitants of the adjoining shore have no need of a dyke to save them from inundation. But when the booming Hood comes down from above, and swells into a volume which rises high above the plain on either side, then a crevasse in the levee becomes a most serious thing. So In peaceable and quiet times, our legal rights are in little danger of being over borne ; but when the wave of arbitrary power lashes itself into violence and rage and goes surging up against the barriers which we made to confine it, then we need the whole strength of an unbroken Constitution to save us from destruction. But this is a question which properly belongs to the jurisdic tion of the stump and the newspaper. There is another quasi political argu• ment—necessity. If the law was vio lated because It could not be obeyed that might be an excuse. But no absolute compulsion is pretended "here. These commissioners acted, at most, under what they regarded as a moral necessity. The choice was left them to obey the law or disobey it. The disobedience was only necessary as means to an end which they thought desirable; and now they assert that though these means are unlawful and wrong, they are made right, because withodt them tile *object could not be NUMBER 8. accomplished; in other words, the end justifies the means. There you have a rule of conduct denounced by all law, human and divine, as being pernicious In policy and false in morals. See how it applies to this case. Here were three men whom it was desirable to remove out of this world, but there was no proof on which any court would take their lives; therefore it was necessary, and being necessary it was right and proper, to create an illegal tribunal which would put them to death without proof. By the same mode of reasoning you can prove it equally right to poison them In their food, or stab - them in their sleep. Nothing that the worst men ever pro pounded has produced so much-,oppres sion, misgovernment, and suffering as this pretence of State necessity. A great authority calls it "the tyrant's devilish plea ;" and the common honesty of all mankind has branded it with everlast ing infamy. Of course, it is mere absurdity to say that these relators were necesearilll de prived of their right to a fair and legal trial, for the record shows that a court of competent jurisdiction was sitting at the very time and in the same town, where Justice would have been done without sale, denial or delay. But con cede for the argument's sake that a trial by Jury was wholly impossible; admit that there was an absolute, overwhelm ing, imperious necessity operating so as literally to compel every act which the commissioners did, would that give their sentence of death the validity and force of a legal Judgment pro nounced by an ordained and estab lished court? The question answers itself. This trial was a violation of law, and no necessity could be more than a mere excuse for those who committed it. If the commissioners were on trial for murder or conspiracy to murder, they might plead necessity if the fact were true, Just as they would plead in sanity or anything else to show that their guilt was not wilful. But we aro now considering the legal effect or their decision, and that depends on their legal authority to make IL. They had no such authority; they usurped a Jur isdiction Nit Mob the law not only did not give them, gut expressly forbade them to exercise, and it follows that their act is void, whatever may have been the real or supposed excuse for it. If these commissioners, instead of aiming at the life and liberty of the re lators, had attempted to deprive them of their property by a sentence of con fiscation, would any court in christen dom declare that such a sentence di vested the title? Or would a person claiming under the sentence make his right any better by showing that the illegal assumption of jurisdiction was accompanied by some excuse which might save the commissioners from a criminal prosecution ? Let me illustrate still further. Sup pose you, the judges of this Court, to be surrounded in the hall where you are sitting by a body of armed insurgents, and compelled by main force to pro nounce sentence of death upon the President of the United States for some act of his upon which you have no legal authority to adjudicate. There would be a valid sentence if necessity alone could create jurisdiction. But could the President be legally execu ted under it? No ; the compulsion un der which you acted would be a good defense for you against an impeach ment or an indictment for murder, but it would add nothing to the validity of a judgment which the law forbade you to give. 'That a necessity for violating the law is nothing more than a mere excuse to the perpetrator, and does not in any legal sense change the quality of the act itself in its operation upon other parties, is a proposition too plain on original principles to need the aid of authority. Ido not see how any man of common sense is to stand up and dis pute It. But there is decisive authori ty upon the point. In 1815, at New Orleans, General Jackson took upon himself the command of every person In tile city, suspended tile functions of all the civil authorities, and mule his own will for a time the only rule of con duct. It was believed to be absolutely necessary. Judges, Officers of tile city corporation, and members of the State Legislature Insisted on it as the only wuy to save the "booty and beauty" of tile place from the unspeakable outrages committed at Badajoz and St. Sebastian by the very same troops then marching to attack. Jackson used tile power thus taken by him moderately, sparingly, benignly, and only for tile purpose of preventing mutiny in his camp. A single mutineer was restrained by a short confinement, and another was sent four miles up the river. But after he bad saved the city, and the danger was all over, he stood before the court to be tried by the law ; his conduct was de cided to be illegal by the same judge who had declared it to be necessary, and he paid the penalty without a murmur. The supreme court of Louisiana, in Johnson vs. Duncan, decided that every thing done during the siege in pursu ance of martial rule, but in conflict with the law of the land, was void and of non effect, without reference to the circum stances which made it necessary. Long afterwards the fine imposed upon Jack son was refunded because his friends, while they admitted him to have vio- lated the law, insisted that the necessity which drove him to it ought to have saved him. from the punish ment due only to a willful offender. The learned counsel on the other side will not assert that there was war at Indiunapolls in 1861, for they have read Coke's Institute l and Judge Grier's opin ion in the prize can's, and of course they know it to be a settled rule that war cannot be said to exist where the civil courts are open. They will not set up the absurd plea of necessity, for they are well aware that it would not be true in point of fact. They will hardly take the ground that any kind of necessity could give legal validity to that which the law forbids. This, therefore, must be their posi tion : That although there was no war at the placd where this commission sat, and no actual necessity for it, yet if there was a war anywhere else, to which the United States were a party, the technical effect of such war was to take the Jurisdiction rway from the civil courts and transfer it to army officers. GEN. BUTLER. We do not take that position. MR. 13Lack. Then they can take no ground at all, for nothing else is left. I do not wonder to see them recoil from their own doctrine when its nakedness is held up to their eyes. But they must stand upon that or give up their cause. They may not state their proposition precisely as I state it; that is too plain a way of putting it. But, in substance, it is their doctrine—has been the doc trine of the Attorney General's °lnce ever since the advent of the present in cumbent—and is the doctrine of their brief, printed and filed in this case. What else can they say? They will admit that the Constitution is not al together without a meaning ; that at a time of universal peace it imposes some kind of obligation upon those, who swear to support it. If no war existed they would not deny theexcluslve Juris diction of the civil courts in criminal cases. How then did the military get Jurisdiction in Indiana? All men who hold the Attorney Gen eral's opinion to be true, answer the question I have put by saying that military Jurisdiction comes from the mere existence of war; and it conies in Indiana only as the legal result of a war which is going on in Mississippi, Ten nessee, or South Carolina. The Consti tution is repealed or its operation sus pended in one State because there is war in another. The courts are open, the organization of society is intact, the Judges are on the bench, and their process is not impeded; but their Juris diction is gone. Why? Because, say ouropponents, war exists, and the silent, legal, - technical operation of that fact is to deprive all American citizens of their right to a fair trial. • That class of Jurists and statesmen who hold that the trial by jury is lost to the citizen during the existence of war, carry out their doctrine theoretically RATES ON AblrEEll.lll*6l. BlM:Nina Anvsnriaratziers, 412 year Per aq uar° o f tell /tees; $0 per year for each ad ditional square. MA L HirtATl, Pnasonsa. ParnmarT, and Gilt =eh Antrisirrisrno, 7 cents a tine for the Met, and 4 Cents for eoch subsequent limier ton. SPECIAL licrricza inserted in Local Column, 15 cents per line. SPECIAL NOTICELS preceding marriages and deaths, 10 oenta per line for nrst Insertion, and 5 oenta for every subsequent Insertion. Busmen win, of ton lines or less • Business,. 10 ards, live lines - Or lean, one year LEGAL AND OTLI k 9. NOTICES— -6 Execrators' ..otices 2 .00 Administrators' notices 2.00 Argtiass' notices 2.00 rs , notices 1.60 Other "Notices," ten lines, or less, throe times 1.60 and practically to its ultimate conse quences. Tho right of trial by jury be ing gone, all other rights are gone with it' therefore a man may he arrested without au accusation and kept In prison during the pleasure of his cap tors; his papers may be searched with out a warrant • his property may be confiscated behind his back, and he has no earthly means of redress. Nay, au attempt to get a Just remedy is construed as a new crime. He dare not even complain, for the right of free speech is gone with the rest of his rights. If you sanction that doctrine, what is to be the consequence? I do not speak of what is past and gone; but in case of a future war, what results will follow frbm your decision endorsing the Attorney General's views? They are very obvious. At the Instant when the war begins our whole system of legal government will tumble into ruin, and if we are not all robbed, and kidnapped, and hanged, and drawn, and quartered, we will owe our immunity, not to the Constitution and laws, but to the mere mercy or policy of those persons who may then happen to control the organ ized physimi lime of the country. This certainly puts us In a most pre carious condition ; we must have war about half the tline, do what we may to avoid it. Thu President or Congress can wantonly provoke a war whenever it sults the purpose of either to do so; and they can keep It going as long as they please, even after the actual con flict of arms Is over. When peace woos them they can ignore her existence; and thus they can make the war a chronic condition of the country, and the slavery of the people perpetual. Nay we are at the mercy of any foreign po tentate who may envy us the possession of those liberties which we boast of so much ; he can shatter our Constitution without striking a single blow or bring ing a gun to bear upon us, A Mingle declaration of hostilities Is more terri ble to us than all army with banners. 'Po me, this seems the wildest delusion that ever took possession of a human brain. If there be one principle of poli tical ethics more universally acknowl edge than another, It is that war, and especially civil war, can be justified only when It Is undertakon In vindicate and uphold the legal and constitutional rights of theeople ; not to trample them down, lie who carries on a sys tem of wholesale slaughter forany other purpose, must stand without excuse be fore God or moan. 1n a time of war, more titan at any other time, public liberty Is In the hands of the public officers. And she is there in double trust; first, as they are citizens and therefore bound to defend her, by the common obligation of all citizens ; and next, as they are her special guardians— " wueshould against her murderers shut the door Not bear tho Icnifo thomsol %Mai" The opposing argument, WllOll turned Into phtin Englishoneans th IS, and this only : that when the Constitution Is at tacked upon one side, its °Melia guar dians may assns l it upon the other ; when rebellion strikes It In the face, they may take advantage of the blindness pro duced by the blow, to Moak hehind It and stab It In the back. The Convention when IL framed the Constitution, and the people when they adopted It, could have had:no thought like that. I f;theyllhad supposed that It would operate only while perfect peace continued, they certainly would have giveh us smile other rule to go by In time of war; they would not have left us to wander about hi a howling wilderness of anarchy ' without a lamp to our feet, or a guide to our path. Another thing proves their actual Intent still more strikingly, They require that everyman In any kind of public employment, state or national, civil or military, should swear, Without reserve or qualification, that he would support the Constitution. Surely our ancestors had too much re gard for the moral and religious welfare of their posterity, to Impose upon them an oath like that, If they intended and expected It to be broken half the time. The oath of an olilcer to support the Constitution Is as simple as that of a witness to tell the truth hi, a court of Justice, What would you think of a witness who should attempt to Justify perjury upon the ground that he had testified when civil war was raging, and lie thought that by swearing to a lie he might promote some public or private object connected with the strife? 'o, no, the great men who made this country what It is—the heroes who won her independence, and the statesmen who settled her institutions—had no such notions hi their minds. Washing ton deserved the lofty praise bestowed upon him by the President of Congress when he resigned Ills comllliBHloll— he had always regarded the rights of the civil authority through all changes and through all disasters.— When his duty as President after wards required him to arm the public force to suppress a rebellion hi Western Pennsylvania, he never thought that the Constitution was abolished, by vir tue of that fact, in New Jersey, or Mary land, or Virginia. It would have been a dangerous experiment for an adviser of his at that time, or at any time, to propose that he should deny a citizen his right to be tried by a Jury, and sub stitute hi place of It a trial before a tri bunal composed of men elected by him self from among his own creatures and dependents. You can well Imagine how that great heart would have swelled with Indig nation at the bare thought of such an Insulting outrage upon the liberty and law of his country. In the war of 181'2, the man emphatically called the Father of the COlllititlitioll was the supremo Executive Magistrate. Talk of perilous times! there was the severest trial this Union ever saw. That was no half-organized rebellion on the one side of the conflict, to be crushed by the hostile millions and un bounded resources of the other. The existence of the nation was threatened by the most formidable military and naval power then upon the face of the earth. Every town upon the northern frontier, upon the Atlantic seaboard, and upon the Gulf coast, was In daily and hourly danger. The enemy had penetrated the heart of Ohlo. New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were all of them threatened from the west as well as the east. This Capitol was taken, and buried, and pillaged, and every member of the Federal Administra tion was a fugitive before the invading army. Meanwhile party spirit leas breaking out into actual treason all over New England. Four of those States refused to furnish a man or a dollar even for their own defense. Their public authorities were plotting the dismemberment of the Union, find individuals among them were burning , blue lights upon the coast as a signal to the enemy's ships. But in all this storm of disaster, with foreign war In his front, and domestic, treason on his lien it, Madison gave out no sign that he would aid old England and New England to break up this government of . laws: flu the contrary he and all his supporters, though corn passed"rou lttl with darkness and with danger, stood faithfully between the Constitution and Its enemies, To shield It, and save tt, or perish three too." The frawerH of the Constitution and all their eotemporaries died and wero buried; their children succeeded them and continued on the stage of public affairs until they, too, Lived out. their lease of life, and paid their breath To time uud mortal (instant ;" and a third generation was already far on its way to the grave before this monstrous doctrine was conceived or thought of, that public officers all over the country might disregard their oaths whenever a war or a rebellion was com menced. Our friends on the other aide are quite conscious that when they deny the binding obligation of the Constitution they must put some other system of law in its place. Their brief gives us notice that, while the Constitution, and the acts of Congress, and Magna (Marla, and the common law, and all the rules of natural justice shall remain under foot, they will try American citizens according to the law of nations I But the law of nations takes no notice of the subject. If that- system did contain a.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers