Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

(thvouide & f cntincl. ! WKBNESIHY'hok.MXK. JANUARY j TSSbiS Among tin? Leading Business I Houses of the lit). » usta ha- always occupied a high position in comuiercial circle.-, on account) oft ! fir; character of her businessmen, i ]I r i reliant- for more than half a j cc-nturv. have been noted for their enter i i-iz ami fair dealing, and have cstab a character for promptness and reliability, in the ] rforuiancc of all their j (.Mirations, which has carnetyur them the confidence and respect of the commercial ; world, to an extent which is hardly ex pcrienc-i and by any other city in the Fouth. This class of our citizens embraces men of Vunrough education, enlarged view.-, and extensive experience in the various circle 8 of commerce and trade. It has been j fortunate for our city and state, in a com- | moreial point of view, that our trade was not of mushroom growth, springing up j under the sudden impulse of excitement and -p u’ution. which has characterized, | to a con sideral do extent, other large cities of the Mouth and Southwest. <Par trade ] i;l , bec-n the result of patient, honest, and persistent toil, directed by wise and com- j j.rcdif jisive intellects, arid rests to-day upon tie solid foundations of stem integrity and expandvo liberality, laid by the founders of i:i the begin ning of the present century. Augusta merchants hare always boenes- I jr cially noted for their affable and polite de- | portment toward their customers, and par ticularly so as to strangers and persons from among the leading Dry Goods merchants of the city, is the house of 11. r. RUSSELL k CO., >;d, 173 BROAD STREET, Whole ale and retail dealers in For eign and dona .- tic dry goods. The senior m, mbertif thi.-, Jinn, 11. F. Russell, Esq., i one of our oldest and most responsible businoas men. He has been connected with the trade of Augusta for more than thirty-three year.., and has by his industry anl indomitable energy succeeded in , .inf a large fortune, and stands to-day in ilic front rank of our leading capitalists. Iri previous years he lias been an active prominent dealer in tl»e cotton broker • ami eommi.-.flon business, and is i ,:,-id< red as, one of the most sagacious and cno rj lining of that class of our merchants. Fli■ bu-ine -s of the house is conducted principally by .Tames J. Russell, son of the senior partner, and Capt. \\ ilberforcc Daniel, both gentlemen of'acknowledged worth and probity of character. Oapt. Daniel's. we believe, is ft native of Lincoln county, Ga., but ho lias been connected with the dry goods business of this city for the paA lift uor sixteen years, with the e.r--•••ptiou of that terrible period, so long to be remembered by all the people of this sunny land, in which the Southern States made their grand, glorious, but unfortunate struggle for a : parate nationality. During the war and from its commencement to its do ,y Capt. Daniel’s was t > bo found in the front rank of those who abandoned private bu inc tied the comforts of home to secure a nations rights. # The younger Russell is treading closely in tic footsteps of his father, and by his quiet, gentle manner and strict attention to business is earning for himself and for the house of which he is an efficient and valu able member, a reputation of which lie may justly feel proud. These gentlemen keep a large and well selected stock of dry goods, gentlemens’ furnishing goodsj house-keeping articles, blankets, sheetings, coverlets, table and bed linens, damasks, ; towelling, and all e ■] , -- p.-.t —i muncratiro prices, in order to make room for their new stock. Country merchants and families needing such supplies will do visit this sterling house before making their purchases. There is no reason why country merchants should pass Augusta to lay in their stocks at the North when 11. F. Russell & Cos., •and other loading merchants in this city will sell them goods quite'us cheap as they can buy in New York, with freight and expenses added, and in many eases cheaper than they can buy the same goods at the North. We know from practical experi ence and observation that small stocks, suitable for the.country trade can be pur chased here at lower rates than the same stocks emld be bought from leading North ern houses. And when to the Northern cost is added the expenses of a trip to and from New York and the freights and charges for the shipment of the goods, the difference in favor of Augusta is palpable and striking. If any of our country friends are dis posed to be incredulous on this point, we wish them to give the above house-a cal* and if they are not convinced as to the correctness of our position we will cheer fully make the correction publicly through our columns. GRAY, Ml i,LARKY & CO., 228 iiIIOAD StRECT. Persons visiting Augusta, within tlic past two years, must have had their atten tion arrested by the beautiful iron front store 228, on Broad street, three doors below the old United States Hotel. This is one of the handsomest of our business houses, and with its large plate glass and iron front, gives to this portion of our beautiful promenade an air of elegance and splendor which is rarely seen in the interior : towns of the South. But if attention is attracted by the out- ! side view of this establishment, the inner decorations and furnishing of the large and commodious sales room are such as to produce the liveliest toolings of gratifica tion and pleasure. Every department of this large and extensive establishment is j thoroughly organized, and the various ; styles of goods arranged and classified with the strictest regard to convenience and display. Each department is under j the pceial charge of a particular attendant, ami the different grades and styles of goods are.kept separate and distinct. In one part of the room is offered the fine dress and i fancy goods, which are so much sought af- ! ter now by the (Southern fair. In another section can be found all the leading fabrics which are used in housekeeping, and in another will bo found an extensive and complete line of domestics, such as sheetings, shirtings, flannels, osnaburgs and all such goods as are used generally by people in the country. Here, too, iu their ; appropriate place, can be found a general . assortment of such goods as are known in ; the trade as notions, and which embraces 1 that endless variety of small things which our housewives find so indispensable in the conduct and management of their house- , holds. A leading feature in this house is j the superior and extensive stocks always 1 on hand of the richer and better class of ladies’ dress goods, and the complete and extensive line of the plain and more sub stantial fabrics. Every portion of this largo establish ment bears evidence of the continual pres ence of those minds which give form and system to the business transacted here;. The proprietors are, all of them, thorough and experienced business men. They have been connected with the dry goods busi ik ss in this city for several years, and have built up a character and reputation for the house of GRAY, MUi.LARKY & CO. which places them in the front rank of our leading business houses. The seuior partner of this concern, James A. Gray, Esu., hasboeniu the dry goods business in this city for more than twenty years. Coming here a stranger, and, while yet a mere youth, he has by energy and industry in business, and a courteous and polite attention to bis pat rons and customers, succeeded in building up a splendid trade, and in establishing a handsome fortune. The other members of the firm are Aus tin Mullarky, formerly well known through out the Mouth as the affable Proprietor of the Clone Hotel, and James 11. Mullarky, an experienced and thoroughly educated merchant, lor several years past connected with the dry goods business of the city. These gentlemen are, all of them, we believe, natives of the “Emerald Isle, but tame to the South during their early youth, where they have ever since re-sided. They are thoroughly identified with the people of the South, and have invested all their property here. One of then; we know to have bec-n a gallaDt soldier in the Confederate army, and all, we believe, con tributed freely of their means in the at tempt to establish the Confederate Gov ernment. This house buys largely from the direct importers, and in this way saves the profit which the jobbers would exact were their purchases made through them. This ena bles them to sell goods quite as low here as they can be purchased from the New York jobbing houses. One of the mem bers of the firm has just returned from the North where he has laid in many additions to their always extensive stocks, and are now offering their goods at greatly reduced rates. Country merchants should give these gentlemen a call before purchasing elsewhere. Nothing is charged for ex hibiting their goods; on the contrary, a rigid inspection and comparison of prices j elsewhere is, warmly solicited. President Johnson. ; Despite the storm of abuse and <U 4 " ie'ii which has been showered ui mi the threats of violence and pei ■ tiikel upon the Constitution df the States. He has not halted or wavered tor a moment in his firm determination to stand by the Constitution of the fathers of the Republic and the Union of the States under that charter. Civil rights bills, impeachment articles, negro suffrage in the District of Colum bia, the repeal of the amnesty section in the confiscation law, the proposed territo rializing of the Southern States, have each and all failed to produce upon this great man the slightest effect other than to strengthen him in the determination to stand firmly by tbe rights of all the States of the Federal Union. We must confess that wo entertained some misgivings as to his course upon the great question of recon struction .just after the results of the fall elections were made known. Since that time wo have watched him closely, and have been gratified to find him every day exhibiting more strongly those great traits of character which have so conspicuously marked his past life—firmness, indomita ble perseverance and unflagging devotion to principle. Unmoved by the fierce threats and malignant fury of the Radi cals, he stands to-day the only bulwark be tween the revolutionary designs of the Rump Congress and the liberties of the American people. We arc rejoiced to find that ho has at last received the support of the Supreme Court, the moral effect of whoso decision in the case of Milligan will be to strengthen the President’s hands, and check the Rad icals in their mad and furious programme. Let the Southern people stand firmly by the President, obey the law, observe all their obligations, and particularly those which give full protection of person and property to the freedmen, and we indulge 1 the hope that the Roman firmness and pa -1 trfotismof Andrew Johnson will yet save and preserve the whole Union. The Croat Yacht Race. The Northern journals and particularly those of New York are tilled with detailed account sos the late, race across the Atlan tic lu'tween the vaclits Henrietta , Vesta I:- u yacht, the ‘ Hairu! . ■ U property of J Gordon U L. devoted a huge niioU cf its u ’ ; ruuuocd L. this ho!*! ;v. «tur« oi> the mblit mind of Europe. .One would be fed to suppose from a perusal of the Ilerald for the last six or eight days, that the contest between these miniature vessels has produced as great a sensation in England and France as the war between Prussia and Austria produced a few months ago. We can hardly believe that an affair so unimportant in itself or in any good or great results, should have excited one half the in terest across the Water as the Herald would have us believe. Rut, however that may be, there is no doubt that in Now York, at least, the excitement has been deep and wide-spread. Large amounts of money have been bet and lost on the race. One man alone is said to • have won over forty thousand dollars. | The feeling has even extended to the pul- | pit; and on last Sabbath, the day after the telegraphic reports of the result were re ceived, Henry I\ ard Beecher introduced the subject into his discourse. This is only another evidence of the great demor alization of the Northern pulpit, and affords a striking commentary upon the real Christianity of the Northern people. We venture to say that such a subject could at no time incur past history have elicited the slightest allusion from the Southern pulpit. Breatl vs. Cotton. Wo suppose it will be conceded on all sides that food is more necessary than either raiment or shelter. _ If this proposi tion be denied we can point to men who have lived to a very old age without any 1 other shelter than the canopy of Heaven. [And we can also instance whole tribes of savages, to prove that men can do without j clothes. But can it bo shown that any one has ever long existed without food ? Hardly. It is the first great necessity of. man for food, which is now driving the j people of the South to abandon the pre- j carious effort to raise cotton by the “free” 1 labor f “freedmen.” and to devote their ; lands to grain culture and stock raising. \\ believer („->ad becomes a problem with ■ a people, this problem will he first solved j to the exclusion of every other, and the j people of the South are but obeying an | instinct of self-preservation when they neglect cotton ibr the cereals. IVhen the 1 pine logs of a Southern forest have furnish- j ed a cabin to the man whom Sherman’s torches rendered homeless ; when a tew sheep and a small cotton patch have given 1 him clothing; when a cornfield has given him read and a brace of hogs has sup- ; plied him with meat, he is prepared to laugh to - mi the calamities of that storm which sooner or later will sweep the finan cial and commercial world. But how is it with the laboring manat tiie .North, who formerly clothed himself viieaj ’ . with Southern cotton ? The high price of the staple has now almost forbid bun the use of it, and his wages, paid iu a 1 depreciated currency, will scarce suffice to iee.t a-.!1. 'v.se him. Nor is the future of the Northern capitalist any brigther than j that ot the laborer ; for without cotton, the baseless paper currency and bonds of the U nited States will rush to au inevitable doom. The high price of cotton, if the people of the cotton States were secure from famine, and had reliable labor, would be a , sufficient stimulus for its cultivation. But . until the people of those States feel safe on the bread question, they are not going to ccssities : and they are right. Let those who brought wreck and ruin upon the country save themselves if they can . and if they roly upon the South to help them out of their troubles with cotton, they “reckon without their host.” There is no power on earth that can compel the South c rn people to raise cotton rather than bread, and tin v would be very stupid indeed if they : arm-bed the world with cheap clothing at the rist of starvation. Let us grm and endure this matter to its conelud 10 ® jwe are in such a desperate condition tLA* nothing can worst us new. —Richmond l ud a - Captain Charles A. Boutt-fte, of Augus ta. Me., recovered a watch recency, which was stolen from him six years' ago, iu Liverpool, England. He was in a concert room at the time it was stolen, and imme diately made the fact known to the detec tives there, who. after six years, succeeded in fiudiug iu The First Sxow. —The first snow in this latitude commenced yesterday after noon about four o’clock. At a late hour, the flakes were thickly falling, with a pro mise of a thorough and genuine snow. Both young and full-grown children had a merry time last night, exchanging scow i balls. — 00l Phoenix* ILLEGALITY OF MILITARY COM MIS- j SIGNS TO TRY CIVILIANS. DECISION IN THE INDIANA CON SPIRACY CASES. OFFICIAL REPORT. Supreme Court of the United States. No. 350.—December Term, 1866. Ex parte in Matter of Lambdin P. Milli gan, petitioner. On a Certificate of ; Damon of Opinion Between the Judges j of the Circuit Court of the United States I )or the District of Indiana. Mr, Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the Court. On the 10th day of May, 1865, Lambdin i P. Milligan presented a petition to the j Circuit Court of the United States for the j District of Indiana, to be discharged from ; an alleged unlawful imprisonment. The case made by the petition is this : Milli- i van is a citizen of the United States; has lived for twenty years in Indiana, and at , the time of the grievances complained of, j was not, and never had been, in the niili- 1 tary or naval service of the United States. On the sth day of October, 1864, while at home, he was arrested by order of General Alvin P. Hovey. commanding the military dixtrict of Indiana, and has ever since ! been kept in close confinement. On the 21st day of October, 1864, he ; was brought before a military commission, convened at Indianapolis by order of Gen. Ilovey. tried on certain charges and sped- ! fications, found guilty, and sentenced to be I hanged, and the sentence ordered to be ex- j ecuted on Friday, the 19th day of May,' 1 1865. On the 2d day of Jauuvry, 1865, after the t proceedings of the military commission | were at an end, the Circuit Court of the j United States lor Indiana met at Indian- ; apolis, and empaneled a grand jury, who i I were charged to inquire whether the laws > i of the United States had been violated, 1 ! and if so, to make presentments. The j 1 - art adjourned on 4 he 27th lay of Ja'n ry, having prior thereto di ci urged from •ther service the grand jury who did not ary bill of it. lictment make any ••niment against Miligan to: sin .hence , i V •'va'kamd I —vutment made again.- 4 him by any and jury of the Unit- f ' 'lihigan insists tnat saiu military com mission had no jurisdiction to try him upon the charges preferred, or upon any charges | whatever; because he was a citizen of the i United States and the State of Indiana, 1 and had not been, since the commencement j of the late rebellion, a resident of any of the States whose citizens were arrayed I against the Government, and that the j right of trial by jury was guaran i teed to him by the Constitution of the ! United States. The prayer of the petition was. that I under the act of Congress, approved March 3, 1863, entitled “An act relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial pro ceedings in certain cases,” he maybe brought before the court, and either turned over to the proper civil tribunal to be proceeded against according to the law of the land, or discharged from custody i altogether. With the petition were filed the order for the commission, the charges and spe cifications, the findings of the court, with the order of the War Department, reciting that the sentence was approved by the President of the United States, and direct ing that it be carried into execution with out delay. The petition was presented and filed in open court by the counsel for Milligan ; at the same time the District Attorney of the United States for Indiana appeared, and, by the agreement of coun sel, the application was submitted to the court. The opinions of the judges of the Circuit Court were opposed on three ques tions, which are certified to the Supreme Court: Ist. “On the facts stated in said petition and exhibits, ought a writ of habeas corpus to be issued ?” 2d. “On the facts stated in said petition and exhibits, ought the said Lambdin P. Milligan to be discharged from custody, as in said petition prayed ? 3d. “Whether* upon the facts stated in said petition and exhibits, the military commission mentioned therein had juris diction legally to try and sentence said Milligan, in manner and form as in said petition and exhibits is stated ?” The importance of the main question presented by this record cannot be over stated ; lor it involves the very framework of the government and fundamental prin ciples of American liberty. During the late wicked rebellion the temper of the times did not allow that calmness in deliberation and discussion so necessary to a correct conclusion of a pure ly judicial question. Then considerations nf safety were mingled with the exercise vailed'v'Y'-h I '-oP terminated." W; ; that the public i:* a ill' 1. tin * ques id *■:!. !. ih, uagnitudeof and sity of full and cautious deliberation. Rut we are met with a preliminary objection. It is insisted that the Circuit Court of Indiana had no authority to certify these questions, and that we are without juris diction to hear and determine them. The sixth section of the “Act to amend the judicial system of the United States,” ap proved April 29, 1862, declares “that whenever any question shall occur. before a circuit court upon which the opinions of the judges shall be opposed, the point up on which the disagreement shall happen, shall, during the same term, upon the re quest of' either party or their counsel, be stated under the direction of the judges and certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court at their next session to be held thereafter, and shall by the said court be finally decided; and the decision of the Supreme Court and their order in the premises shall be remitted to the cir cuit court and be there entered of record, and shall have effect according to the nature of the said judgment and order : Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent the cause from proceeding, if, *in the opinion of the court, fun her pro ceedings can be had without prejudice to the merits. ’ ’ ******* It is under this provision of law that a cir cuit court hasauthority to certify any ques tion to the Supreme Court for adjudication. The inquiry, therefore, is, whether ths case of Milligan is brought withiu its terms. It was admitted at the bar that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to en tertain the application for the writ of ha beas corpus and to hear and to determine it ; and it could not be denied ; lor the power is expressly given in the 14tli section of the judiciary actof 1789, as well as thelateract of 1863. Chief Justice Marshal, in Boll man’s case. (4 Cranch) construed this branch of the judiciary act to authorize tlie courts as well as the judges to issue the writ for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of the commitment; and this construction has never been departed from. But it is maintained with earnestness and ability that a certificate of division of opinion can occur only in a cause ; and that the proceeding by a party moving for a writ of habeas corpus does not become a cause until alter the writ has been issued and a return made. Independently of the provisions of the actof Congress of March 3, 1863, relating to habeas corpus on which the petitioner bases his claim for relief, and which we will presently consider, caa this position be sustained ? It is true that it is usual for a court, on application for a writ of habeas eorpus, to issue the writ, and on the return to dis pose of the case ; but the court can elect to waive the issue of the writ and consid er whether, upon the facts presented in the petition, the prisoner, if brought) be fore it, could be discharged. One of the very points on which the ease of Tobias Watkins, reported, in 3 Petars, turned was. whether, if the writ was isctied, the petitioner would be remanded upon the case which he had made. The Chief Justice, in delivering the opinion of the. court, said : “The cause of imprisonment is shown as fully by the petitioner as it could appear on the return of the writ: consequently the writ ought not to be aw arded if the court is satisfied that the) prisoner wouid be remanded to prison.” The judges of the Circuit Court of Indi ana were, therefore, warranted by an ex press decision of this court in refusing the writ, if sustained, that the prisoner on his own showing was rightfully detained ; but, it is contended, if they differed about the lawfulness of the imprisonment, and eould render no judgment, the prisoner is rem ediless, and cannot have disputed question certified under the act of lsoO. His reme dy is complete by writ of error or appeal, it the [court renders a final judgment, re fusing to discharge him ; but if he should be so fortunate as to be placed in the pre dicament of having the court divided on the. question whether he should live or die, he is hopeless and without remedy. He wishes the vital question settled, not by a single judge at his chambers, but of the highest tribunal known to the Constitu tion ■ and yet the privilege is denied him because the Circuit court consists of two judges instead of one. Such a result was pot in the contemplation of the Legisla ture of. 1 SO2. and the language used by it cannot be eon~ fru od to mesa any such thing, the clause unud F c<*ustderation v ' ; s introduced to further the of ! imnort-mi a settlement of , important questions where the j U( w, might be opposed in opinion. The act of lSo2so changed the judicial ! system that the Circuit Court, instead of three, was comjwsed of two judges: and without this provision, or a kindred one if the judges differed, the difference would remain, the question be unsettled, and jus tice denied. The decisions of this court upon the provisions of this section have been numerous. In United States vs. i Daniel, (6 Wheaton) the cturt, in holding that a division of the judges on a motion for anew trial could not 14 certified, say: “That the question must be one which arises in a cause depending before the court relative to a proceeding belonging to the cause.” Testing Milligan's case, by this rule of law, is it not apparent that it is rightfully here, and that we are compelled to answer the questions on which the judges below were opposed in opinion ? It, in the sense of the law, the proceedings for the writ of habeas orpus was the 'f cause of the party applying for it. then it is evi dent that the “cause' was pending before the court, and that the questions'certified arose out of it. belonged to it, and were matters of right and not of discretion. But it is argued that that the proceed ing does not ripen into a cause until there are two parties to it This we deny. It was the cause of Milligan when the peti tion was presented to the Circuit Court. It would have been the cause of both par ties, if the court had issued the writ and brought those who held Milligan in custo dy before it. Webster defines the word “cause” thus; ‘ ! A suit or action in court; any legal process which a party institutes to obtain his demand, or by which he seeks his right, or supposed right —and he says “this is a legal, scriptural, and popular use of the word, coinciding nearly with case from cado, and action from ago, to urge and drive. ” In any legal sense, action, suit and cause are convertible terms. Milligan supposed j he had a right to test the validity of his ! trial and sentence; and the proceeding j which he set in operation for that purpose j was bis “cause” or “suit. It was the j only one by which he could recover his lib- I erty. He was powerless to do more; he coaid neither instruct the judges nor con trol their action, and should not buffer, be cause, without, fault of his. they were unable to render judgment. But the i true meaning to the term “suit” has ; been given by this court. One of the j questions in Western vs. City Coun- j cil of Charleston (2 Peters) was whether a ! writot’ prohil .on was a suit; and Chief; Justice Marshal', says; 'The term is oer iiviidy ..-ampi. hensiv one, and is un- j dersiood to aup'-y to any proceeding in a i court, of justice by which an individual • pursues that re; ..2y win.l the law attends him." Orta! irs J he 1 only remedy which th* law 'afforded him. Again, .ii Cohens . ... \ irgtma, (<’> « her. ton,) he says : “In law language a suit is the prosecution of some demand in a court of justice.” Also, “to connneuce a suit is to demand something by the institution of process in a court of justice; and to * prosecute the suit is to continue that de mand.” When Milligan demanded his release by the proceeding relating to habeas corpus, he commenced a suit, and he has since prosecuted it in all the ways known to the laws. One of the questions in Holmes vs. Jennison (14 Peters) was, . whether under the 25th section of the Ju diciary act a proceeding for a writ ofliabeas corpus was a “suit.” Chief Justice Taney held that, ‘ ‘if a party is unlawfully im prisoned, the writ habeas corpus is his ap propriate legal remedy. It is his suit in court to recover his liberty. There was much diversity of opinion on another ground of jurisdiction, but on this, that in the sense of the 25rh section of the judiciary act, | the proceeding by liabeas corpus was a i suit, was not controverted by any except Baldwin, Justice, and he thought that “suit” and “cause,” as used in the action, mean the same thing. The court do not say that a return must be made, and the parties appear and begin to try the case before it is a suit. When the petition is filed and the writ prayed for, it is a suit —the suit of the party mak ing the application. If it is a suit under the 25th section of the judiciary act, when the proceedings are begun, it is, by all the an alogies of the law, equally a suit under the 6th section of the act of 1802. But it is argued that there must be two parties to the suit, because tbe point is to be stated upon tlie request of “either party or their counsel.” Such a literal and technical construction would defeat the very purpose the Legislature had in view, which was to enable any party to bring the case here, when the point in controversy was a matter of right and not of discretion; and the words “either party,” in order to prevent a failure of justice, must be con strued as words of enlargement, and not of restriction. Although this case is here cx parte , it was uot considered by the court below without notice having been given to the party supposed to have, an interest in the detention of the prisoner. The statements of the record show that this is not only a fair, but conclusive inference. When the counsel for Milligan presented to the court the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, Mr. Hanna, the district at torney for Indiana, also appeared; and, by agreement, the application was submit ted to the court, who took tlie case under ' „V . . ; . .-|" i'”'' ; was iiifbr. '-.d of file upplieafi": -in.’ ap peared on behalf of the Government to . > r ~ ,■; ... , . ~ . 1 , cutor of Milligan, who claimed that his imprisonment was illegal, and sought, in the only way he could, to recover his liber ty. The case was a grave one ; the court, unquestionably, directed that the law offi cer of the Government should be informed of it. He very properly appeared, and as the facts were uucorttroverted and the diffi culty was in the application of the law there was no useful purpose to be obtained in issuing the writ. The cause was, there fore, submitted to the court lor their con sideration andjdetermination. But Milligan claimed his discharge from custody by vir tue of tlie act of Congress “relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial pro ceedings in certain eases,” approved March 3, 1863. Did that act confer jurisdiction on the Circuit Court of Indiana to hear this case ? In interesting the law the mo tives which must have operated with the Legislature in passing it are proper to be considered. This law was passed in a time of great national peril, when our heritage of free government was in danger. An armed rebellion against the national I authority, of greater proportions than his i tory affords an example, was raging ; and i tlie publie safety required that the privilege | of the writ of habeas corpus should be | suspended. The President had practically 1 suspended it, and detained suspected per sons in custody without trial; but his authority to do this was questioned. It was claimed that Congress alone could ex j eroise this power, and that the legislature and not tlie President, should judge of the political considerations on which the right to suspend it rested. The privilege.of this great writ had never before been withheld from the citizen ; and, as the exigence of the times demanded immediate action, it wasot the highest importance that the lawfulness of the suspension should be fully established. It was under these cir- j cunistances, which were such as to arrest the attention of the country, that this law was passed. The President was authoriz ed oy it to suspend the privilege of the ! writ of habeas corpus whenever, in his ) judgment, the public safety required; and | he did. by proclamation, bearing date the ; 15th of September, 1863, reciting among other things the authority of this statute, j suspend it. The suspension of the writ does not authorize the arrest of any one, but simply denies to one arrested the priv- j ilege of this writ in order to obtain his libertv. It is proper, therefore, to inquire under what circumstances the court* could right fully refuse to grant this writ, and when the citizen was at liberty to invoke its aid. The second and third sections of the law are explicit on these points. The language used is plain and direct, and the meaning of the Congress cannot be mistaken. The public- safety demanded, if the President thought proper to arrest a suspected per son, that he should r.ot tie required to give the cause of his detention on return to a writ of habeas corpus. But it was not con templated that such person should he de tained in eusiody beyond a certain fixed period, unless certain judicial proceedings Laown to the common law were commenced against- hist. The Secretaries of State and \Yar were directed' to furnish to the judges of the courts of the United States a list of the names of all parties, not prison ers of war, resident in their respective jurisdictions, who then were or afterwards should beheld in cu.-tody by the authority of the President, and who were citizens of States in which the administration of the laws in the Federal tribunals was unimpair ed. Aider the list was furnished, if a grind jury of the district convened and adjourned, and did ne t indict or present one of the persons thus named, he was entitled to his discharge ; and it was the duty of the judge of the court to order him brought before him to be discharged, if he desired it. The refusal or omission to fur nish the list could not operate to the injury of any one who was not indicted or pre sented bv the grand jury ; for if twenty days had elapsed from the time of his ar rest and the termination of the session of the grand jury, he was equally entitled to his discharge as if the list were furnished : and any credible person, on petition veri fied by affidavit, could obtain the judge's order for that purpose. Ytilligan. in his application to be released from imprisonment, averred the existence of every fact necessary under the terms of this law to give the Circuit Court of In diana jurisdiction. If he was detaine jin custody by the order of the President, Otherwise than a prisoner of war; if ho was a citizen of Indiana, anu I la( l never Ljp- 'n the mun'ATy or naval service, ah ’ the grand jZJ 2 f tbe dl f’!, ct had met, af- j ter he had been arrested, for. a period of twenty days, and adjourned without taking j anv proceedings against him, then the j court had the right to emofmm his peti tion and determine the of his imprisonment. Because tword court is not found in the Ely of second sec tion. it was argued at the bar that the appli cation should have been made to adjudge of the court, and not to the court itself; j but this is not so; for power is expressly : conferred in the last proviso of the section ! on the court equally with a judge of it 10 discharge from imprisonment, it was the . manifest design of Congress to secure a ; certain remedy by which any one deprived ; of liberty could obtain it, if there was a judicial failure to find cause of offence against him. Courts are not always in i session; and caa adjourn on the discharge j ot the grand jury; and before those who j are in confinement could take proper steps ; to procure their liberation. To provide ; for this contingency, authority was given I to the judges out of court to grant relief , to any party who could show that, under the law, he should be no longer restrained of his liberty. It was insisted that Milli gan’s ease was defective, because it did not state that the list was furnished to the judges, and, therefore, it was impossible to : say under whii section of the act it was presented. ; It is not easy to see how this omission ! could affect tie question of jurisdiction. Milligan could aot know tlxat the list was furnished, unless the judges volunteered to tell him ; for the law did not require that any record should be made of it, or anybody but the judges informed of it. Why aver the fact,”when the truth of the I matter was apparent to the court, without an averment H How can Milligan be harrn ; ed by the absence of the averment when he ; states that he was under arrest for more than sixty days before the court and grand j jury, which should have considered his case, met at Imtianapolis? It is apparent, therefore, that under the habeas corpus act of 1863, the Circuit Court of Indiana had complete jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this case, and if the judges could not agree on questions vital to the progress of the cause they h»d the authority, (as we have shown in a previous part of this opinion,) and it was their duty to certify those ques tions of disagreement to this court ior final decision. It was argued that a final deci sion on the questions presented ought not to be made, because the parties who were directly concerned in the arrest and deten and their .ghts ukht he prejudiced by the j answer which should be given to those, pies : tions. But ties < art anno; know what return w.. he ma * to .La writ of habeas con ; - id:k vk ua and It is very dear I tW im sSr. iS , i • w e 2 upor say question th it may t ra* 5 -" « that return,' In the a certificate ui’ division, a final decision j means final upon tlie points certified.; j final upon the corn" below, so that it is j stopped from any adrerse ruling in all the subsequent proceedings, of the cause. But it is said that this ca;e is ended, as the pre, sumption is that Milligan was hanged in pursuance of the order of the President. Although we have no judicial information on the subject; yet the inference is that he is alive; for otherwise, learned counsel would not appear for him and urge the court to decide hs case. In can never be in this country of writ ten constitution and laws, with a judicial department to Interpret them, that any Chief Magistrate would be so far forgetful of his duty as t i> order the execution of a man who denied the jurisdiction that tried and convicted kirn, after his case was before Federal judges, with power to decide it, who, being unable to agree upon the grave questions involved,had, according to known law, sent it to the Supreme Court of the United States fur decision. But even the suggestion is bjurious to the Executive, and we dismiss it from further considera tion. There is, therefore, nothing to hin der this court from an investigation of the merits of this controversy. The controlling question in the case is this: Upon :he facts stated in Milligan’s petition, and the exhibits filed, had the military commission mentioned in it juris diction legal’y to try and sentence him'? Milligan, net a resident of one of the re bellious States, or a prisoner of war, but a citizen of Indiana for twenty years past, and never in the military or naval service, is, while at his,home, arrested by. the mili tary power of the United States, imprison ed, and, on certain criminal charges pre ferred against him, tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged by a military com mission organized under the direction of the military commander of tlie military district of Indiana. Had this tribunal the legal power and authority to try and pun ish this man? No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole people ; for it is the birthright of every American citizen, when charged with crime, to be tried and punished ac cording to law. The power of punishment is alone through the means which the laws have provided for that purpose, and if they are ineffectual there is an immuni ty from punishment, no matter how great an offender the individual may he, or how much his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice of tlie country or endanger- I 1 By the protection of tbe ui iai r an ■ cut - \ thdqsrt ■hat protect.* . and they are at iho mercy .4 wicked ru. !'?., or the clamor f an ex qted i-uupii if ili re was law to justify ; this OfAbtarytrr:' -Lwi •• ;; r...>r,, to ' int feio :b. •• ■> > tu.. it i. ■■ ’•» to dec'a;., Die nullity ol the wtioie pro , ccedings, The. decision of this question dues not depend on argument or judicial precedents, numerous and highly illustra tive as they are. These precedents inform us of the extent of the struggle to preserve liberty and to relieve those in civil life from military trials. The founders of our Gov ernment were familiar with the history of that struggle, and secured in a written constitution everyriglit which the people had wrested from power during a contest of ages. By that constitution, and the laws authorized by it, this question must ;be determined. The provisions of that in | strument on the administration of criminal justice arc too plain and direct to leave room for misconstruction or doubt of their true meaning.. Those applicable to this case are found in that clause of the origin al Constitution which says, “that the trial of all crimes, except in ease of impeachment, shall be by jury;” and in the fourth, fifth and sixth articles of the amendments. The j fourth proclaims the right to be secure in ! person and effects against unreasonable search and seizure ; and directs that a ju dicial warrant shall not issue “without I proof of probable cause supported by oath ;or affirmation.” The fifth declares “that no person shall be held to answer for a I capital or otherwise infamous crime unless > on presentment by a grand jury, except in j cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in ! time of war or public danger, nor be de ; prived of'life, liberty, or property without 1 due process of law.” And the sixth guar ! antees the right of trial by jury in such | manner and with such regulations that with upright judges, impartial juries, and an able bar, the innocent will be saved and the guilty punished. It is these words : “In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall. enjoy the right to a speedy and pub lic trial by an impartial jury of the State and district, wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed ol' the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the wit nesses against them, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence. These securities for person al liberty thus embodied, were such as wisdom and experience had demonstrated to be necessary lor the protection of those accused of crime. And so strong was the sense ofthe country of their importance, and so jealous were the people that these rights, highly prrized, might be denied ■ them by implication, that when the origi nal Constitution was proposed for adop tion, it encountered severe opposition, and, but for the belief that it would be so amended as to embrace them, it would never have been ratified. Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors; for even these provisions, ex ; pressed in such plain English words that it ! would seem the ingenuity of men could not j evade them, are now. after the lapse of : piore than seventy years, sought to be ■ avoided. Those great and good men fore saw that troublous times wouid arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek, by sharp and decisive measures, to* accomplish ends deemed just and proper, and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril, unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was. done in the past might be attempted in the future. The : Constitution of the United States is a law j for rulers and people, equally in war and : in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection ail classes of men, at all times, 1 and under ali circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of Gov ' eminent. ‘ Such a doctrine leads directly | to anarchy or dc.-p-rism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false ; for ■ the Government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has : been happily proved by tbe result of the ! great effort to throw off its just authority. : " Have aDy of the rights guaranteed by j the Constitution been violated in the case , j of Milligan ? and if so, what . are they ? J j Every trial involves the exercise of judl- ’ ; cial power; and from what source did the i i military- commission that tried him derive ; their authority'.'’ Certainly no part of the j j judicial power of the country was conferred on them, because the Constitution ex p*es_-]y vests it “in one Supreme Court ' and such intern,, courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and estab- , ! fish.”, and it is not pretended that the j mmn ,; "on was a court ordained and es tablishedby Congre-A- They cannot jus- ! tify on the mandate of the president, b®" cause he is controlled by law, and has ins appropriate sphere of duty, which is to ex ecute. not to make the laws; and there is “no unwritten criminal code to which re sort can be had as a source of jurisdie- ; tion.” But it is said that the jurisdiction is complete under the “laws and usages oi j war. ’ ’ It can serve no useful purpose to i inquire what those Jaws and usages are, I whence they originated, where found, and ' on whom they operate ; they can never be ; applied to citizens in States which have upheld the authority of the Government, and where the courts are open aud their process unobstructed. This court has judicial knowledge that in Indiana the Federal authority was always unopposed, aud its courts always open to hear criminal accusation aud redress grievances; and no usage of war could sanction a military trial there for any offence whatever of a citizen in civil life, in no wise connected with the military service. Congress could grant no such power ; and, to the honor of our national legislature he it said, it has never been provoked by the state of the coutry even to attempt its exercise. One of the plainest constitutional provisions was, therefore, infringed when Milligan was tried by a court not ordained and es tablished by Congress, and not composed of judges appointed during good behavior. Why was not delivered to the Circuit Court of Indiana, to be proceeded against according to law ? 2S o reason of necessity could be Urged against it, because Congress has declared penalties against the offences charged, provided for their punishment, and direct ed that court to hear and determine them. And soon after this military tribunal was ended the Circuit Court met, peacefully transacted its business, and adjourned. It j needed no bayonets to protect it, and re- | quired no military aid to execute its judg- j ments. It was held in a State eminently i distinguished for patriotism by judges commissioned during the rebellion, who were provided with juries, upright, in telligent, and selected by a marshal ap pointed by the President. The Govern ment had no right to conclude, that Milli gan, if guilty, would not receive in that j court merited punishment for its records disclose that it was constantly engaged is the trial of similar offences, and was never interrupted in its administration of crimi nal justice. If it was dangerous in the distracted condition of affairs to leave V :,,: unresti-aineu ;f liberty L ! j cans, he “conspired against the Govern- j ' ment. afforded aid and comfort to rebels. . • oid Incited the people to insurrection.” i the hi. said arrest him confine him closely, J ■ (.aider biu\ p- cries - to do further m; -- j i grand i icy of the district, with proof, ,-f * mg to tlie course 01 the common law. 1. this had been done the Constitution would have been vindicated, the law of 1861 en forced, aud the securities for personal liberty preserved and defended. Another guaranty of freedom was broken when Milligan was denied a trial by jury. The grands minds of the country h ave differ ed on the correct interpretation to be given to various provisions of the Federal Constitu tion ; and judicial decision has been often invoked to settle their true meaning; but until recently no one ever doubted that the right of trial by jury was fortified in the organic law against the power of at tack. It is now assailed ; but, if ideas can be. expressed in words, and language has any meaning, this right —one of the most valuable in a free country—is pre served to every one accused of crime who is not attached to the army or navy, or militia in actual service. The sixth amendment affirms that “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury,” language broad enough to embrace all persons and cases ; but the fifth, recognizing the necessity of an in dictment, or presentment, before any one can be held to answer for high crime, “excepts cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger and the framers of the Constitution doubt less meant to limit the right of trial by jury in the sixth amendment, to those per sons who were subject to indictment or presentment in the filth. The discipline necessary to the efficiency of the army and navy require other and swifter modes of trial than are fur nished by the common law courts; and, in pursuance of the power conferred by the Constitution, Congress has declared the kinds of trial, and the manner in which they shall be conducted, for offences com mitted while the party is in the military or naval service. Every one connected with these branches of the public service is amenable to the jurisdiction which Congress has created for their government, and, while thus serving, surrenders his right to he tried by the civil courts. All other persons, citizens ts States whore the courts are open, if charged with crime, are guar anteed the inestimable privilege of trial by jury. This privilege is a vital principle, underlying the whole administration of criminal justice ; it is not held by suilrance, and cannot be frittered away on any plea of State or political necessity. When peace prevails, and the authority of the Govern ment is undisputed, there is no difficulty of ■ : i . ' U,- sal, .. . ;■ .a Lbcrty; for the ordinary modes of trial are never neglected, and no one wished it otherwise. But if society is disturbed 1 civil coimuo .... ; r-- -.f > • v ‘ilfVl'-i if . • should receive, the watchful care oi those ; entrusted with the guardianship of the | Constitution and laws, In no other way j can we transmit to posterity unimpaired’ the blessings of liberty, consecrated by the j sacrifices of the revolution. It is claimed that martial law covers with its broad mantle _ the proceedings of this military commission. The proposition is this : That in a time of war tho commander of an armed force (if in his opinion the exi-. gencies of the time demand it, and of which he is to judge) has the power, within the lines of his military district, to suspend all civil rights and their remedies, and sub ject citizens as well as soldiers to the rule of his will; and in the exercise of his law ful authority cannot he restrained, except by his superior officer or the President of the United States. _ If his position is sound to the extent claimed, then when war exists, foreign or domestic, and the coun try is sub-divided into military departments for mere convenience, the commander of one of them can, if lie chooses, within his limits, on the pica of necessity, with the approval of the Executive, substitute mili tary force for and to the exclusion of the laws, and punish all persons as he thinks right and proper without fixed or certain rules. The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if true, republican government is a failure, and there is an end of liberty regulated by' law. Martial law, established on such a basis, destroys every guaranty of the Constitution, and effectually renders the “military independ ent of and superior to the civil power”— the attempt to do which by the King of Great Britain was deemed by our fathers such an offence that they assigned it to the world as one of the causes which impelled them to declare their independence. Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irre conc-ible, and in the conflict one or the oth er must perish. This nation, as experience has proved, cannot always remain at peace, and has no right to expect that it will alwaj's have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked nien, ambitious of power, with ha j tred of liberty, and contempt of law, may I fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and, if this right is conceded, ! and the calamities of war again befall us. : the dangers to human liberty are frightful i to contemplate. If cur fathers had tailed I to provide forjustsueha contingency, they j would have been false to the trust reposed iin them. They knew —the history of the world told them—the nation the/ were founding, be its existence short or long, would be involved in war —how often or how long continued, human loresight could not tell —and that unlimited power, wher ever lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, ] by incorporating in a written constitution , the safeguards which time had proved es- j sential to its preservation. Not one of j these safeguards can the President, or ! Congress, or the judiciary disturb, except! the one concerning the writ of habeas eor pus. _ It is essential to the safety of every gov ernment that, in a great cricis like the one we have just passed through there should be a power somewhere of suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In every war there are men of previously good character, wicked enough to counsel their fellow citizens to resist the measures deemed necessary by a good government to sustain its just authority and overthrow its enemies, and their influence may lead to dangerous com binations. In the emergency of the times an immediate public investigation, accord ing to law, may not be possible; and yet j the peril to the country may be too immi nent to suffer such persons to go at large. Unquestionably, there is then an exigency which demands that the Government, if it should see fit, in the exercise of a proper discretion, to make arrests, should not bo required to produce the persons arrested ; in answer to a writ of habeas corpus. The ) Constitution goes no further. It does not •say after a writ of habeas corpus is denied ■ a citizen, that he shall be tried otherwise than by tjie course of the common law; . if it had intended this result, .it was easy, by the use of direct words, to have accom plished it. The illustrious men who framed that, instrument were guarding the foundations of civil liberty against toe obuses of unlimited power; they were : full of wLuCT, the lessons of history , informed them that a triai uy • j lisbed court, assisted by an impartial jury, was the only sure way of protecting tne j citizen against oppression and wrong. Knowing this, they limited toe suspension to one great right, and left tne rest to re main forever inviolable. Put it is insisted j that the safety qf the country in timeof; war demands that this broad claim lor martial law shall be sustained, it tins were true, it would be weii said tnat a country preserved at the sacrifice of ai! the j cardinal principles of liberty is not worth ; the cost of preservation. Happily, it is ' not so. It will be borne in mind that this is not a question of the power to proclaim martial law, when war exists in a community and the courts and civil authorities are over thrown. Nor is it a question what rule a military commander, at the head of his army, can impose on States in rebellion to cripple their resources and quell the insur rection. The jurisdiction claimed is much more extensive. The necessities of the service, during the late rebellion, required that the loyal States should be placed with in the limits of certain military districts, and commanders appointed in them ; and it is urged that this, in a military sense, constituted them the threatre of military | operations, and, as in this case, Indiana had been and was again threatened with invasion by the enemy, tlic occasion was i furnished to establish martial law. • The i conclusion does not follow from the pre mises. If armies were collected in Indiana, they were to be employed in another locali ty, where laws were obstructed and the national authority disputed. Ou her soil there was no hostile foot; if once invaded, that invasion was at an end; and with it all pretext for martial law. Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present; the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts aud deposes the civil administra tion. It is difficult to see how the safety of the country required martial law in indiana. If any of her citizens were plotting treason, the power of arrest should secure them until the Government was prepared for their trial, when the courts were open and ready to try them. It was easy co protect witnesses before a civil as a military tri bunal; and as there could be no wish to convict, except on sufficient legal evidence, surely an ordained and established court was better able to judge of this than a military tribunal composed of gentlemen not trained to the profession of the law. It follows, front what has been said on this subject, that there are occasions it in foreign invasion or civil war the courts are actually closed, and it is iuipos ing to law, til' n on the theatre of c military operations where war really vails, there if a necessity L > furnish a sub thrown- to preset-;, the tcly of the army utlu eociCty , UiiU iib ixO l it the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule so it limits its duration for if this Govern ment is continued o/tcr s the courts are rein stated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist, where the courts are open, and in the proper and un obstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war. Because during the late rebellion it could have been enforced in Virginia, where the national authority was overturned and the courts driven out, it does not follow that it should obtain in Indiana, where that authority was never disputed, and justice was always administered. And so in the case of a foreign invasion, martial rule may beome.a necessity in one State, when in another it would be “more law less violence.” YVe are not without pre cedents in English and. American history, illustrating our views of this question ; but it is hardly necessary jto make particular reference to them. From the first year of the reign of Ed ward the Third, when the Parliament of England reversed the attainer of the Earl of Lancaster, because he could have been tried by the courts of the realm, and de clared “that in time of peace no man ought to be adjudged to death for treason or any offence without being arraigned and held to answer, and that regularly when the King’s courts are open it is a time of peace in judgment of law,” down to the present day, martial law, as claimed in this ease, has been condemned by all respecta ble English jurists as contrary to the fun damental laws of the land, and subversive of the liberty of the subject. During the present century an instruc-. tive debate on this question occurred in Parliament, occasioned by the trial and conviction by court martial, at Demarara, of the Rev: John Smith, a missionary to the negroes, on the alleged ground of a aiding and abetting a formidable rebellion in that colony. These eminent statesmen, Lord Brougham and Sir James Macintosh, participated in that debate, and denounced the trial as illegal, because it did not appear that the courts of law in Demarara could not try offences, and that “when the laws can act every other mode of punishing supposed crimes is itself an enormous crime.” So sensitive were our Revolutionary fathers on this subject, although Boston was almost in a state of siege when Gen. Gage issued his proclamation of martial law, they spoke of it as an “attempt to supersede the c. urse and instead thereof to publish and ardor the use of .marital law Tin V irginia ' Tv ' low° \ • Whidb the ' line " himself lof the land and introduces in most us." | crable of all systems, waau: .a a. i In some parts of the country, during the war of 1812, our officers made arbitrary ar rests, and by military tribunals tried citi zens who tvere not in the military service. These arrests and trials, when brought to the notice of the courts, were uniformly condemned as illegal. The cases of Smith vs. Shaw, and McConnell vs. Hampton , (reported in 12 Johnson,) are illustrations which we cite, not only for the principles they determine, but on account of the distinguished jurists concerned in the de cision, one of whom for many years occu pied a seat on this bench. It is contended that Luther vs. Berden decided by this court is an authority for the claim of martial law advanced in this case. The • decision is misapprehended. That case grew out of the attempt in Rhode Island to supersede the old colonial government by a revolutionary proceeding. Rhode Island, until that period, had no other form of local government than the charter granted by King Charles 11, in 1803, and as that limited the right of suf frage, and did not provide for its own amendment, many citizens became dissat isfied because the Legislature would not afford tbe relief in their power, and with out the authority of law formed anew and independent constitution, and procedcd to assert its authority by force of arms. The old government resisted this, and as the rebellion was formidable, called out the militia to subdue it, and passed an act de claring martial law. Borden, in the military service of the old government, broke open the house of Luther, who supported the new, in order to arrest him. Luther brought suit against Borden, and the question was, whether, under the constitution and laws of the State, Borden was justified. This court held that a State “may use its mili tary power to put down an armed insurrec tion too strong to be controlled by the civil authority,” and if the Legislature of Rhode thought the peril so great as to require the use of its military forces and the declara tion of martial law, there was no grouud on which this court could question its au thority, and as Borden acted under milita ry orders of the charter government, which had been recognized by the political power of the country, and was upheld by the State judiciary, he was justified in breaking into and entering Luther’s house. This is , the extent of the decision. There was no question in issue about the power of de claring martial law under the Federal Con stitution, and the court did not consider it necessary even to inquire “to what extent nor under what circumstances that power may be exercised by a State.” YV r e do not deem it important to exam ine further the adjudged cause; and shall, therefore, conclude without any additional ! reference to authorities. To the third question, then, On which the judges below j were opposed in opinion, an answer in the j negative must be returned. It is proper to say, although Milligan’s trial and conviction by, a military com mission was illegal, yet, if guilty of the crimes imputed to him, and his guilt had been ascertained by an established court and impartial jury, he deserved severe punishment. Open resistence to the measures deemed necessary to subdue a great rebellion by those who enjoy the pro tection of government, and have not the excuse even of prejudice of section to plead in their favor, is wicked; but that re sistance becomes an enormous crime when it assumes the form of a secret political organization armed to oppose the laws, and seeks by stealthy means to introduce the enemies of the country iuto peaceful communities, there to light tue torch of civil war, and thus overthrow the power of the United States. Conspiracies like these, at such a juncture, are extremely perilous; and those concerned in them are dangerous enemies to their country, and should re ceive the heaviest penalties of the law, as an example to defer others from similar criminal conduct. It is said the severity of the laws caused them; but Congress was obliged to enact severe laws to meet the crisis ; and as our highest civil duty is to serve our country, when in danger, the late war has proved that rigorous laws, when necessary, will be cheerfully obeyed by a patriotic people, struggling to pre serve the rich blessings of a free govern ment. The two remaining questions in this case must be answered in the affirmative. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the writ itself. The writ issues as a matter of course; and on the return made to it, the court decides whether the party applying is denied the right of proceeding any ! further with it. If the military trial of Milligan was ! contrary to law, then he was entiUeJ, on j the facts stated in jiis petition, to be _dis- : charged frbm custody by the terjhs of the j act of Congress of March 3, 1843. The pro visions of this law having been considered in a previous part of iAts opinion, we will not ' restate the views there presented. Milli gan avers he was a citizen of Indiana not j in the military or naval service, and was detained in close confinement, bv order of | the Pres;.:, nt, from Hie nth day of October, lfM> 1, until tiie 2d day of February, 1805, when the Circuit Court for tho District of Indiana, with a grand jury, convened in session at Indianapolis, anil afterwards, ou the 27th day of the same month, adjourned without finding an indictment or present ment against him. If these averments were true, (and their truth is conceded for the purposes of the case,) tlie court was re quired to liberate him on taking certain •oaths prescribed by the law, and entering into recognizance for his good behaviour. But it is insisted that Milligan was a prisoner of war, and, t here fore, excluded from the privileges of the statute. It is not easy to see how he can be treated as a prisoner of war, when he lived in Indiana for the past twenty years, was arrested there, aud had not'been, during the late troubles, a resident'of any of tho States in rebellion. If, in Indiana, he conspired with bad men to assist the enemy, lie is punishable for it in the courts of Indiana; but, when tried for the offence, he cannot plead the rights of War, for he was not en gaged in legal acts of hostility against the Government, and only such persons, when captured, are prisoners of war. If ho can not enjoy the immunities attaching to tlie character of a prisoner of war, how can he be subject to their pains and penalties ? " This case, as well as the kindred eases of Bowles and Horsey, were disposed of at the last term, and tne proper orders were entered of record. {There is, therefore, no additional entry required. FROM WASHINGTON. r lhe Mdligan Case—The Chronicle and the jV ie York Herald on the Decision of the Supreme Court —The Ex-Dolice Com missioners of Baltimore —Conover and Surratt—Appropriations for the Frced tnen’s Bureau—A Mysterious Paragraph. Washington, December 30, 1866. Among not the least conclusive evidences that the Radicals feel themselves complete ly cornered, is the daily resort of their organs to naked lying, and in a manner that the falsehood uttered is not attempted to be hid by any pretence to circumlocution or ambiguous phraseology. In referring to the President's conversation with Mr. \\ eathwhy, of South Carolina wherein he is alleged to have expressed confidence from the recent decision of the Supreme > jun, that he wiil be sustained by that law-abiding body, the Jacobin mouth-piece “Here » h.-v.-g at a glance another c-vi , donee oi .lie lat;.l tonuencv of the recen (icci.-.-UiOi i 1 ■ Mirremoi.-ourt, oy <i ‘"i ntj oj one im(u, that iheie is noway Iv*union a large class of guilty traitors save l>y civil trials, and that all former trials of this kind were illegal. ’ ’ And its coadjutor, the bribed Herald, simultaneously thus utters the samWfiin blushing falsehood : “The issue, in the appeal from Congress to the people, lias been decided by the people against the President’s policy and in favor of Congress. Can the Supreme Court reverse tho de cision of the war and of the people of tlie loyal States? If so, then one man of the Supreme Court holds the destinies of this country, peace or war, subject to his ipse dixit, for it appears that upon this late Milligan decision the Court was divided five to four." In the articles from which these extracts are taken, the decision in the ‘'''Milligan case," and the Judges who rendered it, are unmeasuredly abused, but it suited the purposes of these paid liars, as well to les sen the weight of the judgment as to ex clude certain Judges from their censure, to represent the Court as divided, and the one consequently deelares that the decision that there is no ivay to punish civilians save by civil trials, was made "by a majority of one man,” and the other that "it appears that upon this late Milligan decision the Court was divided Jive to four." Now Bonnet and Forney both knew when these declarations were penned that they were naked falsehoods; they knew that the Court was unanimous in the decision of the case at bar, unanimous in the judge ment that no civilian can be lawfully tried for any offence except by a civil tribunal, and unanimous in the opinion that “ all former trials of this kind were illegal.” They also'well know that every denunci ation they have levelled at the Court, and every opprobious epithet they haveapplied to the Judges, collectively or personally, applied with equal force to Chief Justice Chase as to Judge Davis. Yet in such contempt do they hold the intelligence and love of truth of their patrons and their party, that such shameless falsehoods are reiterated daily in the face of the fact that every reader must know them to be so. A telegram.from your city announces the withdrawal of the prosecutions against the insurrectionary Police Commissioners. — What influence prevailed in this action, or rather want of action, is unknown here, but your friends feel somewhat chagrined at this seeming lack of “earnestness;” and feel fearful that it indicates a for bearance wholly unsuited to the enormity of tho offences committed against the neople of Maryland, for the past few years, j a miserable minority oi tiie itie«Tn/cro > \ | tive*. The people of the District » >,’ 5 • 5 ' (H..U imitated—they \srfffiw v - Ghirm Ilk intolerance or revengeful proscription', but they wore led to hop. that the laws would oc suffered to take .heir course, -and to that extent that the insurrectionists might be punished, and insurrection made odious. It is though t that the time is near at hand when an offensive policy may not only he deemed safe, but when the Constitutional party may come to the conclusion that it is eminently expedient. No day has yet been assigned for the argument before the Court of this District of tho demurrer in tho case of Conover. Surratt is expected to arrive here about the Ist proximo. Many rumors are afloat respecting official action in these eases. But suffice it to say that they all point to tho probability of a triumph of justice in the end. It is not thought possible further to carry on the farce of “ conspiracy,” and it will most likely be suffered to die away —to be gradually dismissed from the public mind—finally to become as “last year’s clouds. ” -Per contra, a contempo rary, speaking of these cases, says : “Put Surratt in the witness box, with his life the price of his testimony, and Conover would appear an angel of truth beside him. Try him on honest evidence before an im partially empanneled jury, giving him counsel good and true, and a ray of truth may pierce the double conspiracies of Booth on the one hand and of Conover or his bosses on the other. Which will be done? Will Surratt bs punished, or will Surratt be used ? In tho struggle over him, between Anglo-Saxon justice and Machia vellian craft, which is likely to prevail? Time alone can determine; but while awaiting the determination our knowledge of the past affords, alas ! too little ground of hope for the future.” Among the items of appropriation for the present fiscal year there is one of over fifty millions of dollars for the support of the Frcedmcn’s Bureau. Notwithstand ng this vast amount, (which is more than the whole expenses of the Government per annum in Jackson’s time, and' twice as much as in any year of Mr. Adams’ ad ministration) the mendicant negroes in our streets number thousands, excluding those who pretend to be in search of employ ment. _ The Sunday Morning Herald of this city has the following mysterious para graph : “The United States steamer Gettysburg left Annapolis, Maryland, on Christmas night, with all possible secresy, and with persons on board who are said to be pro minent men in the councils of the nation. She is believed to have intended visiting Mexico or the West Indies for political purposes, and it is said that Admiral Porter and Federick Seward were on board. On her way out, however, she ran aground at Horn Point, and has not been got off since. Iler passengers were landed, and the expedition, whatever it was, has been abandoned for the present.” The Congressional Investigating Com mittee at New Orleans heard the evidence of Mayor Monroe, Jacob Baker, and Judge Roselius on Friday. They testified that a, Union mans life was just as safe there as it is in Boston. —Correspondent Baltimore Gazette. Supreme Court Decisions. [RETORTED EPECIALLY FOR THE CHRONICLE &, SESTIJTBI* BT Walker J. Complaint from Jones. Clark, vs. Green. 1. The relation of landlord and tenant is necessary to sustain an action for U3e and occupation. 2. The possession, by defendant in Ufa, of land sold by the Sheriff as his f properly, creates the relation of landlord and tenant between him and the purchaser, in the absence of any proof to the contrary.— Judgment affirmed. Judge Cabiness for Plaintiff in error. W. Poe, for defendant. Anecdote op General Lee.-— General Longstreet lately related the following an ! eedote.in Texas: “On one occasion, Gen ! eral Leo called Colonel L. one of his staff ■ officers into hi3 tent, and commenced dic | taring while Colonel L. wrote. Colonel L. | had in his mouth a pipe* and was smoking. \ The General inhaled the noxious vapor un -1 til his patience became exhausted, andthen 1 said, ‘Colonel L., you can retire, and send Ime Colonel M.; he does not smoke. Colo | nol L. retired, and in a few minutes Colo nel M. entered, to whom the General com menced dictating, but after inhaling the at mosphere«of the tent for awhile ho discov- : ered it to be considerably impregnated, not j with the perfume of roses, but the odious j smell of villianous whisky, which he could | not stand.* ‘Retire Colonel M. and send j me an officer who neither drinks nor I smokes; I would rather endure the smoke i of tobacco than the smell of whisky.’” The Protestant Churchman is to be re established in New York, under the editor ship of Rev. Drs. .J. Cotton Smith, S. It. Tyng, Butler of Philadelphia, and others, opposed to the ritualistic party of the Pro testant Episcopal Church. News and Other Items! TTnn. John R*]l n f Tcnn- -see is quite feeble health. •' N - ' ■ Wi'dis may recover from his ill ness, but ms literary labor is over. General Francis P. Blair, Jr , succeeds Sl* “ Com- J£Z7*£!Zg‘ d ” s a « “ and hia tlirkS? l “ 1 ‘“ happy? i.’&ssg'snj ssr $500,000. VlUg ex Ponses There are now eight hundred barrels of outers consumed m New Orleans in one pS k as -, been commenced against the 1 acme Railroad Company for forfeiture of the road° U C ° Unty boudli issuoJto complete* Solomon advises the .sluggard to go to the ant, but the shiftless in our davs gen erally go to their uuelc. J h A placid old lady in England gave Home, the spiritualist, £24,000 in consols. That is eonsol-ing to Home. —Boston Post. A Congressional prayer-meeting society has been organized. May it prove benefi cial.—Boston Post. When Congressmen pray they prey upon the treasury.— Louisville Journal. A clock is said to have tho least selt-estecin ot any article of manufacture as it is constantly running itself down and lidding its hands before its face, however good it works. A h©.\ who had heard of sailors heaving up anchors, wanted to know if it was sea sickness that made them do it. A young lady is charged with having said that it a cart wheel has nine felloes, it sa pity a pretty girl like her can’t have one. Bi>h.<p Green. MLsmripi i ’ wrtiten •> pastoral ’otter to to the 'C*>urch and Laity oj that Mate, r, which b iamends the subject of negro edit .-.lion. . ' " i officers, in which . "•’inn legethtir. «ne victor d‘ l sta, was ' a; i> qo. ,UO:i wns ills : iieed to Austrian fleet i» t ‘ Gulf of ” ’opposition cted by a large majority. “ Your conduct is very singular, sir,” said a young lady to the gentleman who had just kissed her. “Oh ! well, my dear miss, I will soon make it plural.” Beauty, as the flowering blossom, soon fades, but the divine excellency of the mind, like tho medical virtues of the plant, remains in it when all the charms are withered. An exchange says that “ editors should be ever watchful.” Then they must do better than the Disciples did, who could not “ watch one hour.”— Prentice. An English Judge, iu charging the jury in a railway case, said that lie thought that the 1 (lowing of tobacco smoke in the face of a fellow railway passenger might be con sidered an assault. Mary—“ Charles, dear, now that we are married, you know, we must have no secrets. So, do, like a dove, hand me that Lottie of hair dye you will find in my dressing-case. ’ ’ At a celebration of a marriage, a large number of young ladies were present, the minister said ; “ Those who wished to he joined in the holy bonds of,matrimony will please stand up,” aud all the young ladies arose. The Alderman who was lately in jured by the accidental discharge of his duties, is reported to be in a fair way of recovery, lie says he’ll never be caught in that way again while in the full possession of his senses. When has a lady more water in her sys tem than when she has a cataract in her eyes, a creek in her back, a waterfall on her poll and her shoes high-tied? When she has an oeeau on her head. An Irishman was asked what was his re ligious belief. “Is’t me, bedade, ye’d be asking about ?” said he. “It’s the same as the widow Brady. I owe her thwelve shillings, and she belaves I 11 never pay her, and faith that’s my belafe, too.” Dryden was so bound up in his books that his wife one day exclaimed : “I wish I were a book that I might always be in your society. ” “I wish you were an al manac, so I could change you every year,” replied he. In the execution of two negroes for high way robbery at Wilmington. North Caro lina, on Friday, the rope on the neck of one became misplaced, and he struggled through a gradual suffocation for half an hour. A monument is to bo erected over the r hfr fbief Juctinc Hr-,- B. 1 •?• • 1 n-d ini he Catholic tVine at *r- ; „ i*f ML Li K' Mm : hall anu Hugh ’• Em. inch : Tivder- WM MBH»K* -■ : tve i; tb movement. old bis brother, ti t ■ i< roj ol Egypt, foi the -mu oi tiiry millions ot I'i aues, the wholt of the property which he possesses in that coun try. The commission to the bankers who negotiate the transaction will be scarcely less than three millions. A certain writer says, “no fragment of an army ever survived so many battles as the Bible; no citadel ever withstood so many sieges ; no work was ever battered by so many hurricanes and so swept by storms. And yet it stands. ’ ’ Miss Susan Denin, the well known ac tress, has married again, this time to a well known young man named Peter Cur ley. An exchange says this is the fourth or fifth time that the “festive” Susan has been married. Colfax for President, and Gen. Howard, (Freedmen’s Bureau) tor Vice-President, have been hitched together for the next Presidential race, by some of the New York political jockeys. r lhc Hon. Gustavus A. Henry and wile, both of Tennessee, were passengers on tho ill-fated steamboat Eashton, winch was burned last Wednesday, twenty miles above Itayou Sara, and by which disaster twenty lives were lost. Their fate is not yet known. Mr. Joseph Segar writes to the Balti more Sun that he never undertook to make any authoritative statement or pledges as to the future action of the Vir ginia Lesislaturo, on the question of the Constitutional amendment. A Roman paper says of the French Em peror, “Napoleon the Third has fallen back ;he is lost. He has retreated from Poland from fear of Russia; ho has re treated from Germany from fear of the needle-gun ; lie lias retreated from Mexico from fear of the United States; he has retreated from Rome from fear of (Jr.-ini and Mazzini.” General Butler says that President Johnson “doc,-; not like to show his hand.” Mr. Prentice adds : “If he were to show both his hands and all his pockets, and the inside of his lint, his cock-eyed assailant would see no silver spoons in them.” “Shall ladies have votes?” asked a stump speakei. “Certainly,” replied a strong-minded woman in the audience. “Is woman made only to sew on but tons? And, if she is, it is against the law of nature to turn away the needle from the poll.”— Exchange. The artesian wells of Greeneile and Passy, France, now emit volumes of steam ; the temperature of the waters, which rise from the depth of two thousand three hundred feet, reached eighty-five degrees Faren heit, while that at the surface by night i3 only thirty-five or thirty-six. A father out West kicked his daughter’s lover into the street, and the lover reveng ed himself by causing a stick of wood filled with gunpowder to be placed in the old gentleman’s stove—effect to bo imagined. The Empress Eugenio has sent to M. Earnest Mouton, pupil at the Louis Napo leon College, at Compiegne, a magnificent gold watch and chain, as a souv uir of the verses which he recited to her Majesty on her fete day. A* man who was reading in a paper a.i account of the destruction of some gbi houses at the South, remarked to a friend • “Well, 1’ ui a good temperance man, and do not care how many gin-houses are burn ed ; but if is too bad for these Southern ers to burn them, when they belong to the people of the North.” The Mayor of a town in the west of England, questioning the boys at the rag ged schools asked them what were pomps and vanities of this wicked world ? A lit tle boy said—“ The Mayor and corporation going to church, sir. ” A special correspondent from Washing ton says, it is fully agreed that anew President, pro tern., of the Senate, in place of Foster, shall not be selected until along in February. It was at one time con templated to have an election immediately after the holidays. A paper asks very innocently it it is any harm to sit in the lapse of ages. Another replies that it all depends on the kind of ages selected. Those from eighteen to twenty-five, it put down an extra haz ardous. The terms of 4 Union and 10 Disunion Senators expire with the present Congress viz: Messrs. Cowan, of Pennsylvania" Mc- Dougali, of California : Nesmith, of Ore gon, and Davis, of Kentucky; and the Disuniomstsare: Sherman, of Ohio; Fos ter- of Connecticut; Kirkwood, of Iona; Trumbull, of Illinois; Edmunds, of Ver mont ; I omeroy and Ross? of Kansas; Creswell, of Maryland ; Brown, of Mir soun ; Fogg of New Hampshire; Harris, e . r k> Lane, of Indiana; Howfi of Wisconsin, and Nye, of Nevada. To these vacancies elections have been thus tar held as follows : Sherman, re-elected ; Teny, ir, place of Foster; Justin S. . lor ry!, in place of Edmunds, and James Harlan, in place of Kirkwood; their poli tics being the same as those of the letiring Senators.