War of the Rebellion: Serial 118 Page 0645 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC. - UNION.

Search Civil War Official Records

that if it would avoid and adjournment he would admit that they if present would under oath testify substantially the same as Honorable S. S. Cox.

Thereupon the accused stated that he would close his defense and offer no further testimony.

The judge-advocate stated that he did not propose to offer any further testimony.

The accused then read to the commission the statement (of which Mr. Vallandigham has a copy) hereunto appended:


CINCINNATI, OHIO, May 7, 1863.

Arrested without due "process of law," without warrant from any judicial officer and now in a military prison I have been served with a "charge and specifications," as in a court-martial or military commission.

I am not in either "the land or naval forces of the United States nor in the militia in the actual service of the United States," and therefore a not triable for any cause by any such court, but am subject by the express terms of the Constitution to arrest only by due process of law, judicial warrant, regularly issued upon affidavit and by some officer or court of competent jurisdiction for the trial of citizens, and am now entitled to be tired on a n indictment or presentment of a grand jury of such court to speedy ad public trial by an impartial jury of the State of Ohio; to be confronted with witnesses against me, to have compulsory process for witnesses in my behalf, the assistance of counsel for my defense and evidence and argument according tot he common laws and the ways of judicial courts.

And all these I here demand as my right as a citizen of the United States and under the Constitution of the United States.

But the alleged "offense" is not known to the Constitution of the United States nor to any law thereof. It is words spoken to the people of Ohio in an open and public political meeting lawfully and peaceably assembled under the Constitution and upon full notice. It is words of criticism of the public policy of the public servants of the people by which policy it was alleged that the welfare of the country was not promoted. It was an appeal to the people to change that policy, not by force but by free elections and the ballot-box. It is not pretended that I counseled disobedience to the Constitution or resistance to laws and lawful authority. I never have. Beyond this protest I have nothing further to submit.


The judge-advocate stated that he had no reply to make to the statement of the accused. In so far as it called in question the jurisdiction of the commission that question had been decided by the authority convening and ordering the trial, and he was not called upon to discuss it nor had the commission been willing at any time to entertain it. In so far as any implications or inferences designed or contemplated in the statement of his right of counsel and to have witnesses summoned witnesses as the accused had requested, and he had the benefit of three lawyers of his own choice as counsel, who had, however, remained continuously in an adjoining room during the continuance of the trial- the accused himself for some reason unknown not having introduced them before the commission, though the commission had expressly authorized him to do so and had adjourned to permit his obtaining their presence.

The facts alleged in the specification were to be decided upon the evidence before the commission and he believed it unnecessary to comment thereon.

The question of the criminality of the facts alleged if proved was also a question purely for the commission and which the judge-advocate deemed it unnecessary to enforce by argument. He therefore without further comment submitted the case to the consideration of the commission.

The commission was duly cleared for deliberation.