Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1850-08-31

spuations of the treaty The President could not have
enforced the rights secured British subjects under that
treaty by executive order neither can the
the existing obligation pay Mexico the balance OF what Is
due her of the twelve millions without the concurrence OF
Congress No idea could be more erroneous than to sup
because treaty is the law of the land that the Pres
dent can of himself the flmen OF Its oogauons
when those obligations do not rest upon n put
the Government in all its JUDICIAL
and executive And that is the case now before US. Inc
obligations of this treaty to the rights OF liberty property
and religion on the part ofhe Mexcans rest not upon the
President alone, but upon the Government OF tne oed
Sates-hs a,r-makie the Incorporating, and the Ld,c-
erecutng po,cers comfortably The aw-makmg power must
first speak Laws defining rights and wrongs must De hfst
passed Courts must also be instituted 10 exPound those
laws and marshals be duly appointed to execute their
mandates And the OF the laws thus passed be
opposed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed
the ordinary course judicial proceeding thus established
then, and not till then, would the PRESIDENT De Justlned
under existing laws to the military force for the
protection of the rights secured by that article OF the treaty
BY the Constitution of the United States Is expressly
provided that arising under treaties shall be determined
by the judiciary. The military, this country, by no law
in you statute book be called out in time of peace but
in aid of the of laws in the channels of the courts
or in assistance the marha the discharge OF duties
vested in them by law If the President therefore shall IN
the contingency he apprehends the military forces at
his command against the authorities of Texas it will be
tcithou authority Of iaa daring usurpaton OF power
and gross violation of the Constitution of the United
Statee.
Mr. Chairman one of the surest safeguards of public
liberty is that time of peace the military shall be subor-
dinate the civil authority And oneofhe graSest charges
brought against the King of England in that long list OF
abuses of power enumerated Declaration OF lndepen-
dence and which lost him the American colonies, that
quareng troops the colonies without the consent OF
the legislatures and Of rendering the military independent
of and superior to, the civil power Sir this principle
dates back that II constitutes the soul and
spirit of Magma Charta ITSELF The old barons of England
at Runnymede in 1915 achieved for themselves their nation
and mankind greater more important principle than
that which compelled King John to grant that in all time to
come within his realm
Nuus R6er homo capiatur, eel mprisonetur, aut dis
sasatur, aut uagetur, eruletur ah aiquo odo de-
strua; super i5imus, super cum mittinus
nsi per hgaIe judicium suoru'n, pariam gel per ge
terrd.'
~No freeman shall be seized imprisoned, dispos-
sessed outla,ced IN any ,oay destroyed; nor cH zoe
condemn him, ,riH commit him to prison, excepting
By the legal judgment Of his peers, or BY the aws Of the
iand."
This principle has remained mistaken in England for
upwards Of hundred years. Our ancestors brought
with them to this western continent The trainers of
Constitution reproduced it, somewhat modified in form, but
the same spirit and substance In that great charter OF
power by which every officer of this Government is limited
and controlled The fifth article of the Constitution of the
United States provides that
"No person shall be deprived of ife liberty property,
without due process of law"
The sixth article is in these words
In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the
right to speedy and public trial by impartial jury of
the State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed which district shall have been previously
tanned by lar; and to be informed of the nature and
cause OF the accusations to be confronted with the wit
nesses against him TO have compulsory process for obtain
ing witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance of
counsel for his defence"
Now sir ask if man can be rghtfully shot down by
armed soldery pursuance of Executive ORDER for
doing what he could not be indicted and tried for
doing, much less convicted of any offence for doing, by any
court or code known to the laws of the land! Can the
President rghuy order the army to shoot citizens of the
country In time OF peace, who guilty of crime
violation of no law Can in this country, by an
order from the Chief Magistrate be deprived of his life in
time of peace /" without due process of law!" Where
there is no law there be ansgresson. You will
observe, Mr.. Chairman, that only considering this
question as 1t now stands have, yet, said nothing
about what would be the condition of things if Congress
should undertake to establish Government for New Mexi
co this side the Rio Grande If should be estab
shed there and if laws should be passed prescribing the
manner of determining by judicial proceedings the rights
Mexicans residing there under the treaty and clothing the
President with power to call the aid of the civil author
ties the military force in the execution Of such laws
should be resisted that would present different qucs-
ton from the one now before The President has not
invoked our aid asked pass any laws that may
necessary to execute that article of the treaty. or to enable
him to do efficiently and rghty nor has he even asked
US to pass any law to enable him use the military force
OF the country for that purpose He has simply
what he intends do certain contingencies without
authority of law.
If proposition before to pass law authorizing
the President to resist the authority of Texas in extending
her jurisdiction in that part of the country which refer
has been made that would present the question whe
her there any constitutional power in the General Gov
eminent to coerce of the States of the Union That is
question do not wish discuss. 1t is not now be-
fore u.s. bill be brought in confer this power on the
PRESIDENT then shall meet it. That the distinct oues
ton presented in 1888 between this Government and the
State OF South Carolina. The position assumed by Mr.
Fillmore Is far outside of that assumed bv General Jackson
General Jackson seems have dreamed of RELYING
on the acts OF 1885 and 1907 although there would have
been much more for his doing so in that case than
the present Chief Magistrate in the case before u.s. For
IN south Carolina there revenue and judiciary laws
In force And IN case their execution had been obsced
there would have been much more Unsuitable ground for
calling out the military force than there in this case when
there IS no law to obsruc and judiciary TO appeal to
IN the first instance But General Jackson came 10 Con-
gress with message, and asked amendment Of the laws
providing for the collection Of the revenue to meet the eer
gency created by the ordinance and laws South Carolina
And he further asked amendment of the acts Of 795
and 1907, to give him full power to call to his aid the
military forces OF the country the judiciary should
prove unable to the amended laws y reason of
sistance to its judgments In accordance with
his views the act wel known the force bD was passed
which expired by its limitation in twelve months from
its date The consttutonay of that act was very much
questioned by many at that time But that is not the mat
ter discussing. 1t is even whether General
Jackson without that act could have exercised all the pow
conferred on him but it is whether the President
shall make his judgment of the rights of treaty.
without any judicial investigations the law of the land and
the military force carry that private judgment his
into execution 1t is simply, whether to be under