Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1861-06-11
Martial Law and Slavery.
Professor Parsons of the Cambridge Law
School, thus defines Martial Law

Professor Parsons of the Cambridge Law
School, thus defines Martial Law
-" Practically, the very essence and substance
of martial law is, in England and the United
States, the suspension Of the right to the writ
Of habeas corpus While any person who is ar
rested by any authority can have this writ, and
be brought by it before a civil tribunal, whose
judgment determines eoncusiyoly whether he
shall be held as a prisoner or 60 at large, it is
obvious that the civil law prevails over either
military or martial law. And it IS equally OBJ
vious, that no person can be efectually subject
ed to martial law, that is to an arrest and trial
by military men, and punishment by them, I'M
less the wit of habeas corpus is suspended, for
the time, at least, and rs to this person. On
the other hand when the habeas corpus il pre-
yiousy suspended, there is nothing to interfere
with or prevent the exercise Of martial law 1t
may indeed be said that, for all practical consd-
eratiOns, martial law and the suspension Of the
right to habeas corpus are one and the same
thing"
The same able jurist in treating Of the legal
right of the Federal army to deal with the in
stitution Of Slavery in rebeious State, after
stating that the slaves might be seized and used
in military abors, goes on to say
" The second way is to receive and harbor all
runaway slaves. And the third is but step
further il the same direction although t may
seem to be a wide sep it is to liberate them.
not, as II were, Passiyey, but by proclamation,
or other active MEASURES As matter Of law,
hayo not the least doubt Of the right Of an in
yadIng army to do this. Ii would, regarded as
q mere question Of law, stand on tie footing Of
a destruction Of private property m an enemy's
country. And like that it would be an un-
questionable right but, If the usages Of war
were to govern it, it would be right to be exer-
cised only as military necessity and for the
purpose OF weakening the enemy and lessening
his means of attack or resistance And the ex.
istence Of this necessity must be determined by
the commanding officer, or by tho supreme
authority at home m view Of all the cireum-
stances Of the case. Should there be a war
between two slave States, say Georgia and
South Carolina, and Georgia should invade
South Carolina have no doubt that the inya-
ding forces might and would claim and possess
a right to exercise these means OF weakening
their enemy, il they thought proper
The fourth way Of dealing with slaves would
be to put weapons into their hands and iuc!te
them to armed instruction. II any such
right as this can ever exist, it can only spring
from the EXTREMIST necessity, and from con-
dion Of things which it would be difficult and
painful to imagine. With my understanding
Of 40 armed servile instruction must be, may
illustrate my view Of the law thus An army
which invested a city that was supplied with
water by a stream flowing into it, would have
a military right to cut off the stream, and so
reduce the city to submission. But it would
have no right, military or other, to poison the
waters. There seems to me, as a matter Of law,
good test Tor this. The commander of an in
vading army might certainly. as q military ne
sossftyi H0eiatc us saves, ana make any Use OF
them which he could make Of his own soldiers
but nothing more"