The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-06-11

That this, however, is nCt true, will abundantl
appear when it is remembered that the amendment
to the Constitution must be understood as restrain
ing the powers of the general government not as AZ
plicable to the States. The States of the Union ar
not bound by the limitations ia the amendments
the Constitution Of the United States-becaus
these were intended, not restrictions upon til
State governments, but were designed to enumeIat
powers which the general government should ~
exercise.
Chief Justice Marshall, delivering the opinion
the Supreme Court in Barron u.s. The Mayor au
City Council of Baltimore e Peters 2l3) eXpressI
so decides, and the same rule has been laid dow
over and over again in the Courts of almost eyer
| Northern State.
There being nothing in the Constitution of Rhot
Island to make the act of its General Assemble
| placing the State under martial law uuconstittl
ional. it follows that the Legislature of that ST
had right to subdue DORIS rebellion in that wa,
| But where is the clause in the Constitution Wild
| gives the President power to declare martial Law
| Where does he find authority for suspending IL
writ of hdJeGs corpus? None such can be foun,
| n one such was intended to be given to him bv
trainers. And if such legislative and iudici
power cannot be found conferred upon him is
| necessary to argue that he does not possess III.
Is an argument at this day required to satisfy az
one that the General Government has no power
| that the President has no powers which the Co
| stituion does not enumerate?
Before the case of Luther u.s. Borden can he
lied on to convict Judge fancy of nconsistenc
the President of the United States mot the q,
eminent of the United States) must be shown
possess the same powers which the Government {
Rhode Island possessed in 1871.
Before this case can be used for any such pll
pose, it must be shown that the fourth amepdmpv
to the Constitution of the United States restrai,
propr'o ENCORE State government from dispensiE
with search warrants, and authorizing arrests wit
out oath and warrant-precsely as that amen
ment restraints the general government from O
doing.
Before the New York World can involve Jude
fancy in contradiction, it must satisfy its readr
that when the Judge, in the case Of Luther -
Borden, says that DORIS rebellion "was A state
war, and the established government rescrted to h
rights and ussges OF war to maintain itself an. t
overcome unlawful opposition he meant b. tn
words established government" the same It's Coz
erH0r or President.
Before the New York World cod succeed in il
position that President Lincoia had right t
authorize the arrest Of Merryman by military al
thOrity, and refuse obedience to the process of Tia
Court it must show tnat he not only had a righttt
declare martial lao' and to close the courts of Tvs
tice, but that he had actually done 50 in Mar
land.
Until IL does all these things-until it deted
the Chief Justice in errors Of fact mistakes o
law, it is idle to attempt to destroy the effect O
his decision By comparing it with a case TOTALLY
dissimilar in its circumstances. /
| The case of Luther Borden case invov
ing the right of sovereign State, possessing Il
powers which it had not delegated to the Unite
States, to declare martial law within its limits il
an eXigency of which it was the exclusive Judge
That of Merryman was case involving the rign
of the President possessing limited AID careful,
enumerated powers-to assume under the pleao
political and military necessity, powers, one o
which is expressly denied to the general govern
ment, and the other exclusively vested in Congress
Both OF the judgments stand alike on impregnatl
grounds-both rest on the strong basis OF the Cor
stitntion and the laws, and neither contains a sir
gle proposition not entirely in harmony with th
other. We have been thus particular in this anal,
sis, because we were unwilling that the authorit
of the most eminent judicial magistrate in the Ian
should be invoked without our solemn protest,
support of proposition so monstrous-so utterl
subversive of all civil liberty, that political
military necessity could, under any circumstance
be considered a justification for repeated paIpabl
and dangerous violations of the fundamental law
the land.