The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-06-11
[ooMMpSIcArIoN.l
I QUINN pNItATION.I
JUDGE TANEY'S DECISION IN THE HB >
BEAS CORPUS CASE GF JOHN 1i1is-
RNTIAN.


RYMAN.
Two weeks ago in the United States Court in
this city, scene of impressive solemnity en-
acted.
The venerable Roger b. fancy, Chief Justice OF
the Supreme Court, whose private and public char
acter needs eulogium there raised his voice in
vindicaton of the violated laws of his country,
and in a properly before him, pronounced the
imprisonment Of John Merrvman illegal and the
suspension of the writ of hobeos corpus BY General
Cadwalader under the discretion conferred upon
him by President Lincoln, a gross and dangerous
usurpatiOn of power. That there might be no
misappr ehenson of his views, he has spread upon
the records of the Court the grounds of his opn-
ion-an opinion Gas calm and dignified in tone as
it is unanswerablein argument" and which, wheth-
consider its simplicity OF style, its cearuesg
of statement its concusiyeness of reasoning, is
q model of judicial logic.
This decision, emanatng as it did from the high
est judicial officer in the land ard declaring rs it
did that the President, in suspending the writ of
habeds corpus himself, or delegatng to any subor
dinate officer the right to suspend it, usurping
powers not conferred upon him by the C0nstitu-
ti0n, was at at once bitterly denounced by the
partizans of the Executive. No language was too
strong, term of reproach too vile, to express
their contempt and detestatiou Of the venerable
Magistrate who had dared, in the performance Of
his duty, to resist "a dangerous encroachment by
the President upon the dearest rights of the citi-
zen.
The violence of abuse required no exposure-it
was its own best comment. lnvectiVe and denun-
citation served only to exhibit the strength OF the
decision and the weakness and rage of its assa-
ants.
The Northern press, however, conscious of the
effect which such judgment would inevitably
produce at home and abroad, perceiviug that ia
suting attacks upon the character and motives
the Judge were no answer to his arguments, and
fearful that those arguments fortified thew were
by the weight OF his great name would arouse for
midable opposition to the measures oftbe Admins
tratior have fallen upon adiifaren mode otimpair-
ing the force of decision which they cannot con-
troyert. Accordingly, while abuse and reprnach
freely INDUCED in as ever, there is combined
with them an attempt at argument, which is cal
cuated to mslead some who do not take the trouble
to examine for themselves the accuracy of newspa-
per statements, and the fairness of their quotations.
Without pretending that the Chief Justice has
not fully stated th before him. without alleg-
ing that he has misunderstood or failed to apprec-
ate the decision of his great predecessor, which
he relies; without denying that Judge Story clear
authority for the position he manta AIMS: without in
ward impeaching the truth of his citations and
historical references or undertaking to answer his
arguments in this opinion, the Ne1o York World
in plausible article, endeayors to break down the
decision, by contrasting it with one delivered by
him in the Supreme Court in the case of Luther Us.
Borden ct nj. Towards RepOrts-page
Lucky' saws this profound legal critic ave are ab,e
to appeal not exactly from fancy drunk fancy sober
but from fancy the sympathze with fancy
the vindcatOr of legitimate authOryfrIm fancy Dcu
lent and esty at disregard of his mandate, publishing
opinion written in the warmth Of excitement, to fancy
delivering the well-weghcd Judgment Of the Supreme
Court after argument by able counsel and consultation
with his brethren the benchfom fancy in favor of
rebels in 1861 to fancy against rebellion in 1910. He
maintained in ls49 that the ordinary of proceed
ngs in courts Of justice would be utterly unfit for crisis
which required the prompt suppression of a rebellion,
and that power adequate to the emergency could he
nowhere safely lodged as in the hands Of thu Presi
dent of the United States. Human prudence and fore
sight he then said could not well provide stronger safe
ana r1a pf Than tln re
| spousiby the President could not fail to feel when
| acting in a of so much moment. When rebellion
has made such Roadway that it becomes necessary
military force to suppress it, state of exists and
tine government resort to the rights and usages
to maintain itself and overcome Unlawful opposition
Judge fancy was Of opinion in 1872 that in such state
of things, the officers engaged in its military service
might lawfully arrest any one they had reasonable
grounds to believe was aged in the instruction" In
apparent forgetfuness of having delivered this solemn
official Judgment twenty years ago the Chief Justice
contends that person without violation of
Constitution he deprived of liberty without judicial pro.
cess, and calls this great fundamental law (which
Congress itself could suspend and complains that
it is disreGarded ''by military order supported by
force of arms" And this is from the very same Judge
who, twenty ago. declared that this power which
he now holds up to public odium tyraunieal usurpa
ton of authority, sis essential to the very existence OF
every government" We ask Chief Justice fancy and
his apologists to read mark, and inwardy digest this
quotation from his former sound ana impartial opinion -
We were unwilling to believe that the Chief
Justice of the United States for the purity of
whose character, the extent OF whose learning, and
the correctness of whose judgments cherish the
highest respect, could have placed himself in such
a contradictory and incOn sistent position, and
therefore did not hesitate to accept the kind in
vitation of our learned detector Of judicial error
to Tread, mark and inwardly digest" the "quo-
tation on y which he gives, but the reported case
After somewhat patient and careful ANALYSIS of
the case referred to, perceive no position taken
by the Court, in their opinion, delivered by the
Chlei Justice, which comes in conflict in the slight
est degree with his opinion i'll the case of Merry
contrary re vi
ment that any one should assert that such conflict
exists.
A statement of the facts as briefly as clearness
and precision will allow cannot fail to satisfy any
candid man that the two decisions are in perfect
harmony.
Up to the year 1871, the State of Rhode Island
continued the form of government established by
the charter of Charles the Second, in 1868 with
some alterations necessary to adapt it to the condi
tion and rights of an independent State.
10 the year lS4l, portion of the people OF Rhode
Island, desiring to change the Constitution of the
state held meetings and formed associations, which
fnallv -rnS"Dah irutPUiUn or repetition This con
vention was not authorized by any law of the
existing government.
Upon the return of the votes the Convention TINS
elected declared that the Constitution which they
had prepared was adopted and ratified by a ma
jorty of the people of the State, and was the para
mount law and Constitution Of Rhode Island 1t
then took the necessary stems to organize the new
government and set it in motion.
The old or charter government, by appropriate
leglslation cenounced the attempt to form the new
government in the manner referred TO, and declar-
ed its purpose TO maintain its authority and assert
the legal and constitutional rights of the people.
large number OF the citizens of the State, claim
ing to be majority, gave their support to the old
or charter government.
But Notwithstanding the determination of the
charter government, and of those who adhered to
it, to maintain its authority, Thomas W. DOrr who
had been elected Governor under the new Consti
tuition, prepared to assert the authority of that
government by force, and many citizens assembled
in arms to support him. The Legislature of the
charter government thereup0n passed an act de-
clarlDg the State undeqsm artial law and at the
same time proceeded to Call out the militia to renaI
the threatened attack, and to subdue those who
were engaged in it, In this state of the contest the
house OF Martin Luther, the plaintiff was broken
and entered in order to arrest him The defend
ants were, at the time, in the military service of
the ola government, and in arms to support its
authority.
The old government succeeded in estabIishin,r
tnrou2hout the state ITS authority, which it con-
tlnued to exercise until a Constitution was
adopted under its sanction in l843
From this statement Of facts, most of which is in
the very language of Judge fancy, in his opinion.
1t appears: list. That attempt was made by a
portion OF the people of the State to overthrow in
an irregular manner the charter government and
establish new one. I'd. That the charter gov
eminent in its efor is to maintain its authority by
the action of its General Assembly in due form.
placed the State under martial law. Sd. That the
arrest OF the plaintiff, fer which he sought repara-
ton IN an action of trespass, was made under the
order OF competent military authority.
In other words there existed an the State formida-
bic rebellion, which the regular and established
government of the State determined by constitutions
al tegstG'on to subdue by placing the State under
martial law and by calling out the militia.
The fourth section of the fourth article of the |
Constitution provides that the United States shall
guarantee to every State in the MON Republican
form OF government ard shall protect each from |
invasion, on the application of the Legislature |
Or OF the Executive (when the Legislature cannot |
be convened), against domestic violence. Under |
this section and the act OF 1895 passed in nursu
tnce thereof, which provided that Sin case of an
in any State against the government
hereof, it shall be lawful fer the President of the
United States, on application of the Legislature of
uch State. or of the Executive (when the Lepis la
ure cannot be cOnvened) to call forth such number
IT the militia of any other State or States as NAV
'e applied for, as he may Judge sufficient to sup.
,ress such insurrecuon, President Tyler decided
hat the exigencv had arisen under which the Gov
rnment of the United States was bound to inter
ere; and accordingly, having been applied to bv the
Governor, he recognized the old or charter GOV
Enment as the lawful government of Rhode Island,
nd was preparing to call out the militia of the
nlted States to suppress the rebellion when n
nowledge OF his purpose put end to the war
The supreme Court held, that under the above
sction of the Constitution and of the act of l795
was the duty of the President to determine which
the two governments was the established govern
tent OF Rhode Island; that having decided that
uestion, as necessarily preliminary to calling ont
lie militia to support the regularly constituted
overnment, the Courts were not authorized to in
ure whether his decision was right That there
as nothing in the Constitution of Rhode Island |
men rendered unconstitutional the act Of the Gen
al Assembly of that State in placing the State
nder martial law. That martial law having Tins
zen consttiondliy declared, the "rights and usares
war" were of necessity properly resOrted to- and