The Arkansas banner., 1844-03-13

merits of this question. One of two things is necessarily true in this matter: either he was guilty of the most infamous, damnable perfdv or he believed that General Jack son was acting within the scope of his right i,ll authority, for the defence of the country, its Constitution, and laws. In either event, his conduct was Palpably and totally inden- fensible Having advised the course which General Jackson pursued-eyen if he had changed his opinion as to the correctness of that advice, and the legality of the acts which had been committed in pursuance of It and even if, under these circumstances, he had felt 1t his duty to yindicatc the supremacy ol the laws and the authority of his court, by nflietng the penalty of the law,-yet a mere nominal fine (one cent would have accom- plished that object as eGectualyas one thou sand dollars. In this view, it was not a case requiring exemplary punishment. He did not loubt-he could not doubt-that the ge- neral had acted conscientlously, under high sense of duty; and if he had exceeded his authority-if he had committed an error-ii was an error into which he had been led by the advice of that very judge, whose duty il ] was to know the law. and advise correctly; and who afterwards, with the shameless per versity of his nature; enforced yindictiye penalty. boldly assert that the judgment was vindicliye because the amount of the 1 fine, under the circumstances of the case, Is conclusive upon that point.
 But if should grant, for the sake of ar gument, lthat which de not admit,) that General Jackson exceeded his authority, and thereby violated the Constitution and laws, and that Judge Hall was clothed with com petent power to punish the offence, still, l am prepared to show that, even in that event, the judgment. was unjust, irregular, and illegal.
 The champions of Judge Hall on this floor have debated the question as if the mere de- elaraton ol martial law, of itself, was con tempt of court, without reference to the fact whether it actually interrupted and obstruc- ted the proceedings of the court. Was there evera more fatal and egregious error? Ev- cry unlawful act is not necessarily a contempt of court. A man may be guilty of every of fence upon the whole catalogue of crime, and thus obtain for himself an unenviable immortality, without committing a contempt of court The doctrine of contempts only applies to those acts which obstruct the pro- ceedings of the court, and against which the general laws of the land do not afford ade- quate protection. It is this same doctrine ot necessity, eonlerring power, and at the same time restricting its exercise within the nar- TOW limits of self-defence. The rights of the citizen, the liberties of the people of this country are secured by that provision of the Constitution of the United States, which de- clares that ssthe trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, ShdH De by jury ;" and also the amendment to the Constitution. requires ''a preSentmeRt or indictment ot q grand jufgo General Jackson, as well as the humblest citizen and the vilest criminal, was entitled 10 the benefit of these Constitu- tional provisions. If he had violated the Constitution. and suspended the laws, and committed crimes, Judge Hall had no right to punish him by the summary process ol the doctrine of contempts, without indict- ment, or jury, or evidence, or the forms ol trial. It is incumbent upon those who de- i fend and applaud the conduct of the judge. to point out the specific act done by General Jackson, which constituted contempt of court. The mere declaration of martial law is not of that character. If 1t was improper ly or unnecessarily declared, the geneTM was 1 liable tO be tried by court martial, accord ing to the rules and articles of war, estab- lished by Congress for that purpose. It was a matter over which the civil tribunals had no jurisdiction, and with which they had no concern, unless some specific crime had been committed, or injury done; and not even then, until 1t was brought before them, ac- cording to the forms of law Some specifi- cations have been made in the speeches of gentlemen against General Jackson, which l will notice in their proper order.
 The first is, the arrest and Imprisonment of Louallier, on the charge of instgating trea- son and mutiny in the Generals camp. Ii is immaterial, for the purposes of this discus sion, whether he was actually guilty or not He stood charged with the commission of high crimes, the punishment of which was death. He was believed to be guilty, and consequently there was probable cause for his arrest and commitment for trial, accord ing to the doctrine of the courts. If permit ted to go at large, he might have matured and executed his plans of mutiny and trea- son, by the aid of the British army, which was then lowering around the city. But sup posing this arrest to have been contrary to law, as gentlemen contend: yet it was no contempt of court. If 1t was an offence at all it was a case of false imprisonment, which was indctable before grand jury, and tria- ble by petit jury. Why did they not pro- ceed against General Jackson according to law, and give him trial by jury of his country, and obtain a verdict according to evidence2 The answer Is obvious: they could not procure verdict of ''guiltyo from an honest and patriotic jury, who had fought ill the defence of the city under the opera tson of that ''terrble martial law" and who had witnessed the necessity for its declara- ton, and its glorious effects in the salvation of the country.
 The next specification which gentlemen make against General Jackson is, that he did not appear before Judge Hall in obedience to writ of habeas corpus, issued by the judge for the liberation of Loualler, who was in confinement on charge of mutiny and trea- son. A simple statement of the facts of this ease will carry with it the generals justiiica-