Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1860-06-09
not even as a limited monarchy, but as an a5so'
luLe deSpokism.
THE R POINT.

nOk 6NBu US u nultou mOuthOhJJ pNN
iute despotism.
q THE FIRST POINT.
Fbe n. y. Tribune. in q recent issue, expresses
The opinion that it will be difficult to make the
people understand that there was anything for
Mr.. Hyatt to 60 to Jail for. He did not 90 to
jail until he was first sent; and the people will
naturally first wish to understand what he was
sent to jail for, and we think it would be far more
difficult to make them comprehend the right and
necessity Of the action Of the Senate, than the sub
mission Of Mr.. II. to the iu,prisonmen: he could
not avoid If true to bis own convictions Of ri bit.
WIEN TO DEFEND A RIGHT.
The fitting time to defend q right, is when q
tight is %assaiied, or your possession of it question
ed. Mr.. Sanborn stood upon the defence in
Concord, as has Mr.. Hyatt in Washington. The
action of both is needed; and though Mr.. Sanborn
10 in freedom ia Concord, and Mr.. Hyatt in prison
In Washington, these lacts are no evidence that
che course Of the latter was less needed, was less
judicious, or less effective than was that of the
former. We believe the defenders Of Mr.. San
born are far more numerous and stronger to-day
because Mr.. Hyatt led on the attack Of the forlorn
hope. Indeed, we by no means feel certain that
- AOoSAS wi now OOOh ouOSOcCAultJ ttCh ptVui
had not the stand previously taken by Mr.. Hyatt
arrested the attention of the people, and showed
them the necessity of self-prOtection.
THE MASSACHUSETTS DECISION.
The question decided in Mr.. Sanborn's case by
che courts Of Massachusetts,, is merely the decision
of q side issue. 1t does not 20 down to the gist of
the na.ter-to the question as to the rights Of
citireas as opposed to The power of the Senate.
All that Massachusetts has decided is this: That
the Sergeant at Arms OF the United States Senate
has no right to delegate to another his authori-
ty 20 arrest a Massachusetts citizen upon Massa-
chusetts soii. The question whether that officer
has himself a right to make such an arrest was
not brought before the Court. That is yet an
open question; and should it be decided in the
negative, il eve= brought up for adjudication, such
a decision WI uld not be a final settlement, for it
could be appealed to the United States Courts, and
what hope can there be there for the rights of man
or the security of the citizen
TUE ISSUE IN FULL.
Mr.. Hyatt's case, on the con trary, necessarily
embraces the entire question. He is in the power
of the Senate where the authority Of no State
Court can reach him. Ills discharge must be
given either by the body which imprisoned him,
or by a Court of the United States. He has no
disposition to bring the question before the latter
tribunal, and for the following reasons. First
because the United States Courts would probably
stand by the United States Senate, and declare
the power exercised by that body to be %constitu-
tional. Second because the people have an
MOlstrous reverence for judicial decisions and jud.
icial presidents, so that even if they believed his
imprisonment to be unconstitutional, as we'll as a
violation of natural rights. they would bow down
and worship the decision the Supreme Conrt sci
up. He would rather have the honest, unbiased
decision Of the common sense Of the people and
If that cannot be obtained and enforced either
through the Senate or over the Senate, he prefers
imprisonment to compromise, and the defence OIL
principle, to the adoption ofn false and world
ly policy ia order to obtain freedom.
This letter has unconsciously grown to it's pree
ent length, and we must abruptly leave Mr.. Hyatt,
though we may have occasion to speak again oil
eur visit TO Washington City Jail,
B. S. j.