From the Richmond Dispatch, 7/29/1864, p.1, c 6

The Ogden Habeas Corpus Case. – The case of R. D. Ogden, upon habeas corpus to be relieved from conscription upon the ground of English allegiance, was further heard before Judge Halyburton, of the Confederate States District Court, yesterday. Mr. Aylett, Confederate States District Attorney, replied to Mr. Randolph, and will be followed by Mr. Lyons in reply.

Mr. Aylett, for the Government, took the ground that the return of Major Payton that Ogden was either a naturalized citizen or a domiciled foreigner liable to service, threw the burden of proof on petitioner. Nevertheless, he gave a resume of the facts disclosed by the petition and evidence and argued his liability to service. Over twenty years ago the father of Ogden with his family came from England to the United States to better his fortunes. He came in no official capacity, not under duress, nor as an émigré driven to seek an asylum here. He came voluntarily to seek a better home; settled in St. Lous, and afterwards purchased lands in Iowa – a thing not allowed by most of the States, and probably Iowa, except a citizen. He, the father, followed several occupations, and is still living, as well as the mother, somewhere in the United States. At the time of his coming, Ogden, the petitioner, was eight years old, and his domicile was that of the father. He showed, however, by affidavits, that in 1861, Ogden, the petitioner, had voted in Mobile for Sheriff; had sworn his vote in, and had received pay for his vote; and that by the laws of Alabama citizenship was necessary to vote. He showed, moreover by affidavits of persons familiar for years with Ogden, or Richard Wesley, as he was sometimes called, that they had never heard or knew of any purpose of his return to England, or that he claimed to be a subject of Queen Victoria. To oppose this there was only the affidavit of his mother in-law, an illiterate woman, as her mark, instead of signature, disclosed. He contended that petitioner had never shown any purpose to rely upon a British Consul’s certificate until the Conscription law became imminent or until its passage, and that he was a legitimate conscript. – These were substantially the facts elicited. Some citations of law, not interesting to the public generally, were made. Mr. Aylett’s argument was occasionally tinged here and there with characteristic humor and some rather biting irony. At its conclusion the further consideration of the matter was postponed till Saturday, when Hon. James Lyons will close for the petitioner.

Go to top