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

i
that this was high handed and despolic
power one that was only 10 be exercised
when necessary, and which ceased when
the necessity no longer existed. Such was
| the power under which General Jackson
declared martial Jaw at New Orleans. On
this part Of the subject he did not intend
to 60 into the history of all the occurren>
ces of that period-they had been detailed
in a most faithful and interesting manner
BY the gentleman from Louisiana. (Mr.
SIidell.) 1t was sufficient for him to know
TINT General Jackson, who was the COM
handing general, deemed it necessary to
declare martial law in order to defend the
city. 1t was sufficient for him 10 know
that the Governor and Legislature of the
I gIdIE ueemeu IJ necessary. II WIS SUM
Gent for him to know that the courts and
the whole population of the city deemed
it necessary and it was sufficient for him
| to know that this Immaculate Judge Hall
himself deemed it necessary. Ay. sir;
did not this profound judge-ihis pure
| palriot-did he not understand the consli-
| tuition and laws when he advised the Cen
| eral to declare martial law! Did he deem
| tina, his advice to the General was to tram
ple on the laws? Was he perfdious when
he gave such advice? Was he laying trap
| for Gen. Jackson, 10 ensnare him? Was it
| in good faith, first to advise him TO declare
martial law, and then punish him for it /!
| One of two things was true: either that
he theught it was the Generals duty to
declare martial law, or that ne was false,
| pssfid.ous enemy, seeking to betray him.
| The most charitable conclusion was that
| Judge Hall did belive that martial law
| was necessary and seeing the near ap>
proach Of the eneniy-seeing the traitors,
in the camp. and seeing the impending
danger, did advise the General to declare
martial law. Then what right had he to
arrest the execution of it! If the General
had The right to declare martial law. it was
his duty to execute it, and Judge Hall had
no right to arrest the execution of it. But
let US. (said Mr. D. take another view oil
the subject. Gentlemen in this discussion
had assumed, with much boldness. that
the judgment rendered by Judge Hall was
a legal one, and in conformity with the
strictest rules of justice. Now let us ex-
anime. and see if /. be so. In the limited
time allowed him, (Mr. D he would not,
on this part of the subject, question the
power of the Judge to punish for contempt.
He would not, for the sake of argument,
question the power Of the Judge to punish,
at his own arbitrary will and discretion,
without trial, without Witnesses, &c. He
would concede the position that The Judge
had the right to punish for contempt; and
then he would contend that he had no
right in this case to render that judgment.
and that the judgment was illegal. Now
he took this ground that the declaration
of martial law of itself was no contempt OF
the court; and if it was illegal, it was a
crime for which the general was RESPONSE
bic to court-marlial, or the civil courts !;
but the law of contempts could no. reach
him. Then did Gen Jackson do any act
that amounted 10 contempt! Certainly not.
We are told that he arrested the French
| man IsoualIier and confined him in prison;
Ibut if he did any thing wrong in that act.
i (which Mr.. d. would not admit,) he was
| only liable to indictment, or an action for
false Imprisonment; but there was no con-
temp Of court in that act. Then as to the
arrest aud Imprisonment of Judge Hali
himself. There was no contemp! OF court
in that act for when the arrest was made
Judge Hall was not sitting in court, but
was at his lodgings as a private cI'lzen.-
No one can pretend that, if a judge of one
of our courts is assaulted or otherwise
! mal-,rea,ed in the streets, he can 60 and
open his court. and then summon the par
~ before him and try him for contempt.
In such case, judge must seek redress
! like any other private citizen. General
Jackson, therefore, in arresting Judge
Hall, subjected himself, if the act was lie
gal, to indictment for the false imprison>
men. of a citizen, but by no means render
ed himself liable for contempt of court
Blu. they were told that the repeal point
was the refusal of the general TO obey the
wri: of habeas corpus for Louallier. Now
it must be borne in mind that that writ was
issued on the 5.h, and was returnable on
the 9th, at IL o'clock, but it was never
f shown TO or seen by General Jackson till
, after the hour at which 1t was returnable
The writ was therefore nullity-it was
, dead, and it was impossible for the gene
. raj to obey or answer it when 1t was
shown. for it was then no longer of any
force whatever. The general, however
!. on being brought before the court, submit
!. ted his answer on oath, and in which he
purqed himself Of the contempt according
J | IL. law but the judge in most arbitrary
, | and tyrannical manner, refused to receive
! the paper. and entered the judgment a
/ gainst him. If the refusal to obey the wri
, Of habeas corpus was a contempt, still thu