The mountain sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1844-1853, 1851-08-07
Gen. Jackson---Judge DOUGLASS

| Gen. JacksOn---Judge DOUGLASS,
| We lately met with an incident in the evening
hours of Andrew Jackson's life, which is worthy
OF being more generally known than it is Every
fact relative to this remarkable man is inter
esting to the popular mind and deserves preser-
vation.
To those who enjoyed the confidence of Gen.
jackson, it is known that no event of his whole
lie gave him more concern than the charge, so
often made against him, that in proclaiming
martial law at New Orleans, he had violated the
constitution of his country This charge gave
him increased pain, from the fact that all his
friends and staunchest supporters admitted the
violation of the constitution, but justified it on
the plea of necessity. Livingston, Grundy and
lngersoll-names of note-had all written and
published able defences of the conduct of Gene
raj Jackson; still they had given no quiet to his
mind. The question of the remission of the
fine imposed by Judge Hall before Congress had,
elected all the violence of his opponents, all the
acumen of his friends; still the defence was not
satisfactory to the General who said "he didn't
know how it was that a man in saving his coun-
try could violate the constitution by doing So"
1t was when the debate was drawing to a
close, that amid the various competitors for the
Speakers ear it was awarded to Judge Douglass
of Illinois. He was a warm advocate for re-
funding the fine, and commenced his discourse
with views so new that he at once riveted upon
himself the attention of the whole House. We
have not his speech, though we remember some
of the points he made. He denied that General
Jackson had at New Orleans violated either the
Ior- 81,
question was, Did the necessity for proclaiming
martial law exist? If it did, it was no violation
of the constitution to proclaim it and that it
did exist, was admitted by the Governor and
Legislature of Louisiana, the courts, the whole
population of New Orleans as also by Judge
Hall himself. 1t was the necessity, he argued,
which made the act legal and constitutional,
and which but for it would have been crime
Thus, it is unlawful to take the life of another;
still, suppose traveller on q high way beset by
q robber, who with uplifted arm and cleaning
knife is about to strike, and at this moment the
traveller, to his own life, kills his adverse
ry, would it be said he killed him in violation
of law? No; the necessity in the case would
make legal and proper that which but for the
necessity would be crime.
SO, for On officer to destroy ship intrusted
to him by his country, is crime. But suppose
us at war with foreign power, and one Of our
national vessels well supplied with military
stores should be overtaken by an overwhelming
force of the enemy-the captain defends his
ship as long as there is hope, until all his men
fall around him and his capture is inevitable
He pauses. Shall he suffer his ship to be cap
tured and turned against his country, or shall
he serve his country by sacrificing himself and
his ship? He determines on the latter; ap-
preaching the magazine he waits until his ship
is boarded; another moment and its fragments
are scattered over the waters. Will his country
tarnish his bright escutcheon or his fame with
the charge of destroying his ship in violation of
law? No, but the very necessity would make
that dazzling virtue, which but for the necessi-
ty would be dark and damning crime. 1t is
the necessity which makes the law, not justi-
fes it.
Again: to destroy the public property is un-
lawful; but suppose in q time Of war, at one of
our frontier posts, large quantities of provisions
and military stores should be collected, and the
officer in command, finding it necessary to re-
treat, is unable to remove them: shall they be
left to strengthen the enemy who is in want of
these very things, or shall they be destroyed?
The officer destroys them. Can it be said he
violated the law by doing SO? No; it is the ne
cessity which makes the law. 1t was the neces-
sity at New Orleans, not which justified Gen.
Jackson in doing an illegal and unconstitutlon-
al act, but which made legal and constitutional
that which he did do.
Thus illustrating and enforcing his views, he
,,,ode ,he most effective speech delivered on the
sub;eot-so absorDeu, the entire attention of the
house, that, the one hour rule existing, he spoke
nearly two hours and called forth an apology
from the Speaker for permitting him to do So
who said he was so much interested that he was
unconscious of the lapse of time; of which
speech John Quincy Adams said no one could
| now attack General Jackson without denying
the necessity which was said to have existed for
rreel aiming martial law