The Arkansas banner., 1844-03-13


 The next specification ill the catalogue of crimes which gentlemen charge upon the i hero of New Orleans, is, that he forcibly seized and retained possession of the writ, and the affidavit on which it was issued.- l The facts are, that when the writ and aflida- vit were brought to him for service, after the time for its return had elapsed, and it had become nullity, he discovered that mate rial alteration. had been made, in the hand- writing of the judge; moi only in the writ, but also in the affidavit, tcittom the consent of the man who had sworn 10 il. These alterations of themselves rendered the papers void, even if they had been originally valid, and had not expired of their own limitation; but as they contained the evidence upon their face of the crime of forgery, 1t was important that General Jackson should retain posses sion of them, lest they should be destroyed, and the evidence lost.
 With this view, the general did retain the originals, and furnish certified copies 10 the judge. These transactions did not occur in the presence of the judge, or his court, nor when his court was iii session; and of course could not be legally punished by the sum mary course of contempt. If they were ille- gal, why not give tue benefit of fair trial by jury of his country, as guarantied by the Constitution and laws? No: this was arbi- trarily and unjustly withheld from him; there by denying him the privilege of proving his innocence.
 The next, and the last, of these high crimes and misdemeanors imputed to Jackson at New Orleans, is that of arresting Judge Hall, and sending him beyond the limits of the city, with instructions not to return until peace was restored. The justification of this act is found in the necessity which required the declaration of martial law, and its eontinu- ance and enforcement until the enemy should have left our shores, or the treaty of peace should have been ratified and published. The judge had confederated with Louallier and the rest of that band of conspirators who were attempting to defeat the efforts of the American general for the defence of the city. Their movements were dangerous because they were protected by the power of the civil law, in the person of Judge Hall, by per- version of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus. The general was driven to an ex- tremity, in which he was compelled either to abandon the city to whatever fate the con- spirators might choose to consign 1t, or to resolutely maintain his authority by the ex- ertion of his own power. He took the re- responsibility, and sent the judge beyond the limits of his camp. The question arises, was this act a contempt of court2 The court was not in session; he did not inter- rupt it's proceeding; he did Rot obstruct it's process; but he did imprson the man who had beed exercising the powers of judge. II that imprisonment was unlawful, the general was liable to be indicted for false imprison- ment; and, like any other offender, to be tried and condemned according to the forms of law. But the judge had no right to say, < Vengeance is mine," and l will visit 1t upon the head of my enemy until the measure ol my revenge is full. Now, sir, l have dis posed of all the specifications of crime and oppression, and tyranny, which have been charged upon General Jackson by his ene- mics upon this floor, in connexion with his defence of New Orleans. have endeavored to state the facts truly, and fairly apply the principles of law to them. will thank the most learned and astute lawyer upon this floor to point out which one of those acts was q contempt of court, in the legal sense of that term, so as to authorize a summary infiction of punishment, without evidence, trial, or jury. No gentleman has yet speci- fled the act, and explained wherein the con- tempt consisted; and l presume no one will venture upon so difficult task It is more prudent to deal in vague generalties, and high sounding deelamation-frst about the horrors of arbitrary power and lawless vlo- lence; than the supremacy of the laws, and the glorious privileges of the writ of habeas corpus. These things sound very well, and are right in their proper place. do not wish to extenuate the one, or depreciate the other. But when l hear gentlemen attempting to justify this unrighteous fine upon General Jackson, upon the ground of noncompliance with rules of court and mere technical for malities, l must confess that cannot appre- ciate the force of the argument. In cases of war and desolatton, in times of peril and dis aster, we should look at the substance, not the shadow of things. envy not the feel ings of the man who can reason coolly and calmly about the force of precedents and the tendency of examples in the fury of the war cry, when '' booty and beauty" is the watch word. Talk not to me about rules and forms in court, when the enemy's cannon are point ed at the door, and flames encircle the cupo- la The man whose stoicism would enable him to philosophize coolly under these cir cumstances, would fiddle while the Capitol was burning, and laugh at the horror and anguish that surrounded him in the midst of the conflagration! l claim not the posses sion of these remarkable qualities. con cede them all to. those who think that the saviour of New Orleans ought to be treated like criminal for not possessing them in a higher degree. Their course in this debate has proved them worthy disciples of the doc Urine they profess. Let them receive all the encomiums which such sentiments are calcu- lated to inspire.
 But, sir, for the purposes of General Jack sons justification, l care not whether his proceedings were legal or illegal, constitu- tional or unconstitutional, with our without precedent, # hey acere accessory 10 the sal- ration ot that ely. And l care as little l wbefhpr bn obSnrvnd all tbe rrleS and fornas,