The Hawk-eye and Iowa patriot. (Burlington, Iowa) 1839-1843, 1840-01-02

enjoy: should have the same auti,or;fr
~ io -. crime committed in Maine Is
!, ~ o.ie IN missouri. No law giving sncb an
nus osei been pointed out. | have
examined carefully, and can find none.
- ms Is Inc whole of the .'singula, oDin;on, ),
ieu " ~ your article Of last week. Lam.
4 however, inclined to think thai ani ;
mad reference to some desultory cannn . nal..
which took place upon that occasion Il ,,,a
stated that party from Missouri had h.sn
upon the disputed ground for the purpose of on.
forcing the collection of taxes. 1t did not an.
pear what particular tets had been done. nor
/ Oh "hom the party was composed. This, at
most, under the laws of the United STATES.
/ would only De "a trtspass, und no warrant was
sought Tor under the laws oil the Territory.
/ II was, however stated as matter Of hearsa Y
or probability, q do not remember which.
!; that General Wilcox, the commander Of the
assembled military force accompanied tile tax
gathering party above mentioned. OF course
1T could not be expected that warrant would
issue upoL such vague and indefinite state.
ment. 1t gave rise, however, to the spccula.
tive doubt expressed by me, whether, even if
! these suggestions had been shown to be facts.
a militia officer would be amena BILE to the laws
of the United States for acting in obedience to
the laws of his own state. Could he be guilty
OF treason for endeavoring to avoid punishment
for disobedience 10 stpte laws? If the two pow.
ers come into collision, is not mans primitive
and highest allegiance due to his own state?--
Must every military man-officcr or private
deliberate before he obeys orders, and examine
the whole frame Work of the federal and state
I organizations, to see if perchance some of his
superlors in command have not transcribed
their legitimate authority? If the directions
OF the Executive, in pursuance of the laws of
the State, would not justify the Major Gener-
al, no orders thence derived would screen the
private soldier; SO that every citizen capable of
bearing arms might be subjected to the severe
alternative of being tried by court martial on
the one hand, and on an indictment for treason
on the other. was unwilling to believe that
the law was thus unreasonable.
The true principle in relation to this matter
seemed to mo to be that in military affairs es-
Peciaily, the command of the superior in gen.
eral excused the act of the inferior The whole
responsibility, therefore, would be thrown up.
on the paramount power originating tie mea-
sure. In the case we were then considering,
that paramount power was the legally constitu.
ted authorities for exercising the sovereign pow
or OF the State of Missouri. 1t might therefore
be regarded as the act of the State ITSELF A
State may unjustly declare war, but cannot
commit treason or any other offence punisha.
Bile by the laws Of this Territory.
These were my views then, and have not
changed them since. They constituted, how.
ever, an individual opinion, not an official de-
cision. Your remark, last week, was calcu-
lated to create the belief in your readers that
my conduct in this matter had been improper
| should like therefore, to have them know the
truth in relation thereto.
Yours, &c.
CHARLES MASON.