Bloomington herald. [volume] (Bloomington, I. T. [Iowa]) 1840-1849, 1844-02-09

4 E1ONO14 u M 41VuoSA261SSe
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 5
SATURDAY., January 6, 1874. s
Mr.. DOUGLASS, of Illinois, observed that
| when the bill was introduced by the lear
ned gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr..
c. J. lngersoll, he had hoped that i,
would be permitted to pass without debate,
and withou. amendment; but the charac-
ter of the amendment submitted by the
gentleman from Georgia, Mr.. Stephens, I
and the debate that has taken place on lha!
amendment and on the original bill, had
been SO extraordinary as to justify and re-
quire the friends of the bill to go into the
discussion of the whole subject. For one,
he was not prepared to shrink from any
question connected with the subject no.
was he prepared to admit the correctness Of
the imputation cast on the supporters of the
measure by gentlemen who had spoken in
opposition to it, 1t had been sligmatized
as AN after-,hought or party trick. as a
humbug, as an attempt TO make political
capital for the next presidential election
Mr.. Dickinson here explained, that if
the gentleman alluded to him, he had con-
fined his remarks to the speeches and not
10 the bill. a
Mr.. Douglass continued. He thought
fair construction required him TO say that
the gentleman confined his remarks to the
speeches made in support of the bill; but
there were other gentlemen who did not,
AMI who attacked the bill ITSELF He then
hurled back on them any imputations on
the sincerity Of those who advocate the
passage Of this bill. We have heen told,
continued Mr.. D.. that we are the preten-
ded friends of Gen. Jackson and that
those who take the opposite ground are his
real friends Ye. in the very next breath,
we find them denouncing him as viola
tor of the law and the Constitution. and as
having trampleL on the rights of the judi
ciary. He applied these remarks TO the
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.. Pey-
ton, so far as he imputed to majority of
The House the introduction of humbug,
so far as he asserted that it was a political
design for the purpose of procuring polil-
ical capital for the next presidential cleo.
ton.
Mr.. Peyton asked leave to explain. If
the gentleman would recolect the cons
| menaamant of his remarks. the nihec day.
he would find that he protested his wish
to vote for the bill and alluded to the spec.
ches and action on it here as humbug,
and as design to obtain political capital,
&c.
Mr.. Douglass said he alluded 10 the
speeches of gentlemen on the other side,
when he characterized them as humbugs
and as political design; for the gentlemen
| professed to be friends of General jack
son; while they were casting obloqny on
his name. Well nigh. the old hero say,
God deliver me from my friends, if she!r
friendship be such as this.
Mr.. d. insisted that this bill vas bro,
forwarded in good faith, as al act Of JUS
ice--iustice to General Jackson as well
as to the American people. To refuse
to pass it, would be an act Of the grossest
| injustice 10 the American people. and
would stamp them with ingratitude to
their bravest defender. He was not one
to admit that General Jackson violated The
Constitution or the law, a. New Orleans.
He denied that he violated either. He in
sisted that the General righttuly perform.
ed every act that his duty required, and
that his right TO declare martial law, and
enforce it, resulted from the same source
and rested on the same principle that the
gentleman from N. York, Mr.. Barnard,
asserted, from which Jud ge Hall derived
the authority to punish for contempt with
out trial, without witnesses. without jury,
and without any ,hing but his own arbilr.
airy will. The gentleman asserted tina! the
power TO punish for contemptwas not con
fcrred by the statute. or by the common
law, but was inherent in every Judicial lri-
bunal and legislative body; and he citet
the authority of the Supreme Court to sup
port the assertion. He said that this pow
er was necessary to the. courts, TO enable
them to perform the duties which the law:
. entrusted to them, and arose from the ne
cessily of the case. Now, it was from
the same source that the power 10 declare
martial law was derived-i,s necessity il
time of war for the defence of the country
The defence Of the lives and liberties Q
the people, as well as their property, being
all entrusted to the discretion of the com
handing general. it became his duty Z
declare martial law, if the necessity Of III
case required it. If it became necessar.
to blow up fort, he was authorized 70 d
it; if it became necessary TO sink vessel
he was authorized to do il and # i be
came necessary to burn city, ne was az
thorized to do it. The necessity Of IN
case was the law to govern him; and, n
on his responsibility must judge of the ex
istence of that necessity. Ii was the hrs
: lam Of nature W hich authorized a man 4