New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-11-21

relevant TO the question Of LEGAL right; and we aso
piss over the suggestion of correspondent, That
Enelishmen in this respect wore treated than
Americans themselves, for that though reason 10
be contidered before making the complaint, cannot
take away the right Of England TO complain II the
Government OF a friendly Power imprison our el'i-
zeDs contrary TO law, ana deny them the nght OIL
trying the question cI legallty. ,
The answer OF Air. Seward is substantially that
an Instruction has broken ont in the United states;
that Congress has by the Constitution DO executive
power or responsibility; that the President Is m
vested with all the executive over oi tue 1O'ei.-
ment, and with The supreme direction OF all mnhil
pal ministerial civil agents, and OF the forces o
the Union; that the PIesdeIt Is charged by the Con
siitutou AID laws with tie duty OF suppressins IN
suuection and repoliing invasion and that, theie-
fore he has The night to Suspend the WIN oi "ooe"S
cOTDns Whenever, whereso.yer, aud III "hais'e'pI
ease he uleaes Mr.. Seward further states lha1 tue
President has suspendedthe writ OF ha6eas corpus
TO inst the extent that. with regard TO the penis OF
The Safe, he deemed necessary Here iheh' mIe
two statements: one Of law aud one OF fact. Inc
statement Of law is that TIE President haze
in time of intrrreeion the right to ar.
rest suspected peTons, aud 70 suspend
tie writ of habeGs corpus; tie second is that as
matter Of fact be has Suspended the wit. N.Y. Sew
arr Ids enlil,iy failed TO convince "a OF either Of
these propositions. His argument for the ilght Is
an argument for prerogatiyc and is little more than
providing for the public saiety which places ne
liberty OF the citizen AID the wit Of babcas corpus
at the disposal If the President places TIE whole
Constitution at his feet. That the President at the
head of large army has the power to DO these
things may be true, but that power does not, 50 isr
rs we can see, draw sitter it the most remote sem
blanee Of right. Snch arguments remind us OF the
darkest daya Of our Constitution, when sup Money
and the dispensing power were defended by appeals
TO real or Imaginary necessity. ~, he Etgnsh
law knows no such principle. Tie preroga-
tive of the Crown has limits as clearly ochned ~
the powers OF any other public officer, and yet that
prerogaiive is n tradition handed down from ages
when the liberties OF the people Were lmperlecliy
understood, while the American Pretiient acts under
clear written authority contained in Constitution
not much more tEan seventy years old. The suspen-
zion of the abeas Corpus Act is not, as Mr. Seward
would have it, an executive, but legislative func-
ton The wit Of habeas corpus Is part OF the Con-
stution, and can only be Suspended legally by the
same means by which the rest OF the Constitution
can be altered Next il is quite clear that the Pres
iient has not legally .usp nded the writ-for, had
be done 70, there would have been no occasion Tor
him TO issue oTdsTs to the military commanders TO
disobey ii when issued. j. Is not the President, but
the Judges of the Supreme Court who are the judges
whether the wit has been legally suspended or not.
TIE proof that II bas NOT been legally suspended Is
that they continue 10 Issue it, aud that the President
finds it necessary TO direct disobedience 20 il.
Mr. Seward tells us that the President Il RESPONSE
bic before tie Supreme Court of the United States
for his conduct in this matter but that purely
irrelevant consideration. As regards the subjects Of
a foreign country It is quite true that we have no
right author tatiyely TO interpret the CObettuon Oi
the United States; but then it is equally true that
the American Government las 10 such night. The
legitimate authorities TO decide the question are tie
judges Of the Supreme Court Of the United States,
and the Chief Justice appears 10 baye decided thai
point in our favor by Isl ing the wit OF hnbeas
corpus, which the Government never qucstiCued as
Illegal but ret aside by an appeal TO the power OF
the sword We lave said that we do not enter now
into the Iners of this controversy inquire into
the prudence OF commencing il. The ease has been
argued exceedingly i'll on our part, aud with much
ability on the part OF the American Government;
but the only result has been entirely 10 convince us
that, on their own sho wing, their acts have been
ILLEGAL "a regards their citizens, and Violation
of the rights Of nations ns regards ours