tion of the laws of the land. They arrived in Cincinnati on the coldest day of the season, and were forced to ride for sev eral hours up and down the streets of that city, until the officers decided where to imprison then. As their arrival was unexpected, no place had been prepared for them. Finally, after much deliberation, the benumbed prisoners were lodged in prison at the McLean Barracks. Here their treatment by the officers was insulting and disgraceful in the extreme, as will be seen by reference to the narrative of Mrs. Morris, given elsewhere.

Soon after their arrival in Cincinnati, two or more friends of Judge Morris and his wife, in that city, proposed to MajorGeneral Hooker, then in command, to take charge of them, and put them in a hotel, where they might be supplied with necessary comforts, free of expense to the United States Government; and, as security for their forthcoming to answer any charges that might be brought against either, these friends offered to pledge fifty thousand dollars each. This offer was refused. Judge T. W. Bartlett also offered to take the Judge and his wife to his own house, in the city, and keep them safely, subject to the orders of the commander, which was also declined.

General Willich, second in command, more humane than his superior officer, signified his assent to either proposition, as the Judge was informed.

Early in January, 1865, eight of the prisoners, including Judge Morris, were placed on trial before a Military Commission. They were charged with:

1st. "Conspiring, in violation of the laws of war, to release the rebel prisoners of war confined by authority of the United States, at Camp Douglas, near Chicago, Illinois.

2d. "Conspiring, in violation of the laws of war, to ley waste and destroy the city of Chicago, Illinois."

A specification was added to each charge.

The prisoners all filed pleas, denying the jurisdiction of the Court to try them.

Protesting their innocence, they argued :

Ist. "That the defendants, being citizens of the Jnited States, and not connected with the military or Laval service of the United States, are entitled to be tried by the United States Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

2d. "That, as the offences, alleged to have been committed in the charges and specifications, are not infractions of any of the rules and articles of war, but fall within the provisions of the act of Congress of July, 1861, this tribunal cannot legally take cognizance of the case.

3d. "That, according to the second section of the act of Congress of March 3, 1863, authorizing arrests by the military authorities in States where the administration of justice in the civil courts is not impaired, these defendants should be tried by a civil, and not by a military tribunal.

4th "That this Military Commission is not authorized or provided for, by any power in the country, except by the army in the field, and there is no rule or custom providing what punishment shall be inflicted. It cannot be claimed that this Commission is a matter of necessity, as the civil courts of the land are open.

5th. "That, from the nature and manner of the proceedings of this Commission, a fair trial cannot be had, as the Judge Advocate stands as accuser of the defendants, and must necessarily be prejudiced against them."

This plea being overruled, they then moved for a separate trial, which was denied them.

The prisoners then pleaded not guilty.

The trial lasted some four months. During the most of this time the prisoners were chained in pairs, and so marched up and down the streets, to and from the Court, until the public began to complain of such barbarous treatment.

The shackles were then thrown aside. The trial did not close until after the assassination of President Lincoln, which the Judge Advocate (Burnett) used with great force against them, charging the prisoners with being more or less the cause thereof. After a confinement of six months they were found not guilty, and discharged from military custody

Judge Bartlett, in closing his remarks before the Commis sion, said: "My client, Judge Morris, is a man advanced in years. It is not pretended that he had ever been governed by any malevolence of heart, enticements of ambition, or allurements of power. He commenced life before either you or I came on the scene of action. He has labored in all sincerity to maintain and perpetuate what he conceived to be the true principles of government, and for the advancement and prosperity and safety of the country.

"His character, both in public and private life, is shown to have been without a blemish. Ardent, sincere, humane, and hospitable, he had the confidence of the enlightened and welldisposed men of all parties. The testimony of Judge Drummond, and others, puts to blush the narrow, grovelling notion. that a citizen cannot be a true or loyal man in time of war, unless he advocate and sustain the peculiar war measures and policy of the Administration in power. Every member of this Commission, every man who has heard the evidence, knows that Judge Morris has been guilty of no crime."

Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, when speaking of military courts for the trial of civilians, said: "They have lost sight of the guarantees of the Constitution, and seem to forget that every man has a right to trial by jury. . . . . They seem formed to convict, whether a man be guilty or not, so that he who is acquitted by them, must be not only pure indeed, but above suspicion. We are told that 'arbitrary power sucks out the heart's blood of civil liberty."

Senator John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, in addressing the United States Senate, used the following powerful language: "If trial by jury is overthrown in this country, then take the rest. If you are going to throw a drag-net over the land, as they did in Chicago, if you are going to bring in this whole people, and subject them to the penalties that may be inflicted by military commissions and courts martial, then the last step is taken in the humiliation and deg radation of this country, and we shall be left fit instruments for any despotism that the bold and lawless may think proper to establish over us."

AARON MORTON, JACOB G. PECK, BENJAMIN H.

MARKLEY, AND HENRY LYNCH.

ARON MORTON, a citizen of Maytown, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, is a brickmaker by occupation. At the commencement of the late civil war, he volunteered as a private in Company A, 10th Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers, in response to the first call of President Lincoln for troops. He served his time faithfully, and was honorably discharged. During the summer of 1864, Mr. Morton was drafted, but in common with several others—both Republicans and Democrats - failed to report at Lancaster city, in answer to his summons. Subsequently his township (East Donnegal) filled its quota with recruits, thereby exempting its drafted men.

He remained at home, "pursuing the even tenor of his way," until Monday, November 7, 1864, when Deputy Marshal Carpenter, of Lancaster, aided by two soldiers, arrested him. The Marshal said that he must accompany them to Marshal Stevens's office, in the above-named city. Morton demanded his authority for making the arrest, and further inquired the nature of the charges against him. The Marshal failing to produce any warrant or authority, Morton do nied his right to drag him from his home. Carpenter in sisted that his being an United States Deputy Marshal gave him sufficient authority to make the arrest, and forced him to comply with his mandate. Morton accompanied him peaceably, but under protest. On arriving at Provost Mar shal Stevens's office, in Lancaster, he was placed under a guard, and removed thence to the County Prison. While there confined, he was offered convict's fare, bread and water,

but declined it, and paid the usual charges for board The jailer afterward remarked: "That is the place where all Democrats should be." He subsequently inquired of the prisoner if, on his procuring his release, he would vote the Republican ticket. Mr. Morton indignantly spurned the proposal, and remained in prison until the 10th inst., when several of his friends demanded his release, or a hearing. Stevens feigned ignorance of his arrest, and ordered his immediate discharge. When the prisoner was brought into his (Stevens's) office, the Marshal simply said, "You can now go home, we have nothing to do with you." Carpenter then turned toward Mr. Morton and remarked, that “if he had no money he could walk to his home," (sixteen miles distant.) "as it was not very far."

JACOB G. PECK.

Jacob G. Peck, a fellow-townsman of Mr. Morton, was sought for on the same day, but was not at home, and thereby escaped a few days' incarceration; it not being the intention of those in authority to hold them longer than a few days, as will be seen in the sequel.

BENJAMIN H. MARKLEY.

Benjamin H. Markley, of the same place, while in the act of voting at the Presidential election, on Tuesday, November 8, 1864, was touched on the arm by Deputy Marshal Middleton Whitehall, and claimed as a prisoner. The Marshal was anxious to hurry him away from the polls, but was prevented, he being unable to show any authority for the arrest. After Markley had voted, Messrs. George Wilson, Henry Haines, Henry Houseal, and other old and respected citizens, requested Whitehall, if he had authority for making the arrest, to take the prisoner with him, and assuring him that he should not be molested in the execution of his duty. This offer he de clined, and left the town shortly afterward.

The constable of Maytown, in his next return to the Court at Lancaster, reported a disturbance of the peace at the elec