Case involving President Harrison to be performed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Benjamin Harrison Day will be celebrated as part of the Indiana Supreme Court's Courts in the Classroom program with two historical depictions of the Ex-Parte Milligan case on Tuesday at the Indiana Statehouse at 10 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.

The event is targeted to students who participate by reading definitions of various legal terms and biographies of the key players, but some seating is available to the public. The event will also be webcast at 10 a.m. and again at 12:30 p.m.

Milligan involved a Fort Wayne attorney, Lambdin P. Milligan, who was convicted of treason and sentenced to death by a military tribunal in 1864 for his actions against the Civil War. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately overturned the tribunal's decision in 1866 on the grounds that the defendant was a civilian and should not have been tried in a military tribunal.

In 1877, in a civil case in federal court in Indianapolis, Milligan sued Oliver P. Morton, governor of Indiana during the Civil War; Alvin P. Hovey, the military commander and head of the tribunal; and General Ben Spooner, another high-ranking Union officer. Milligan was seeking damages for time he served in prison and for the time it took him to clear his name following the tribunal.

Harrison, who was elected president in 1888, represented Morton at the suggestion of President Ulysses S. Grant.

The program includes explanations and re-enactments of parts of the military tribunal, the Supreme Court case, and the civil case. The President Benjamin Harrison Home is also involved with the event.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?