Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1861-07-26

Ehe cohstitutionality OF the Presidents
Ac~ Tor the Public Dotense'
/ We have received the following communication
| from n supporter Of The covern.oe,t who ia
troubled NV tbe cops,,,u,,,,,., ,...,.. ~ -.
/ -, '''SA' " ''''
e"J' ~ ,,-.... &c. .
| 's''''Sn gnce eepsn,ss ,sss,9 ni9
Eos. GAzFTTE; would like to have YOU nr sorstodv
else answer the following quesonsi lat Has the Pres
vni.eo 60 S'ns .ns 70 the wit Of
the writ Of 1absGs cos shall NOT be suspended by
act Of Congesi sd Has the President the power 70 de-
clare war without the consent Sth bas not
nntee ma s is isIout he eonsent Of Con-
ercssi
The above questions continually sounded In the
OF those who profess 70 be loyal TO the eoyernmen or
no GtneI , tan & % ~ s ~ ne eors 9' se ~,
for Mr. Lincoin set lam willing TO stand By him aud his
Administration so long as he keeps within the limits Of
the constitution the above qaesons were satis'ae-
'O'''' = "'1'@ wW.R
uah.,.o ol.,,,,o,.l -, ,bo 6,5eo. coro,,s mart
We nave eiaVOi"''u Vi ~
Of these questions before but 1t is our ONCE 10
give line upon line and precept upon precept,
and as the enemy, with the propensity which he
has had ever since he deluded our first mother,
to take any shape but his own, now chiefly as
sums this disguise to oppose the enforcement of
the laws, we will briefly state what we suppose
to be law and reason on this and other questions
The writ of hdbeaS corpus Is simply TO give
force 70 the right TO liberty. 1t was held 10 be
an inalienable right in England, from whence
we imported IT, Our Constitution does not au-
thorize its suspension IL recognizes the writ
as an inalienable right and provides that il shall
not be infringed. The exception of cases of re-
bellion or invasion is merely recognition that
the laws of war necessarily suspend civil pro-
cess ofall kinds, "as the public safety may re-
ouire it," If not, the killing of men in battle
would be murder and liable to the penalty of the
law. If not prisones of war might be taken
out of the hands of our troops by habeas corpus;
and If domestic enemies could be so liberated
foreign enimies taken prisoners could be set free
by the same writ.
The Constitution recognizes the inherent right
to liberty and declares that no man shall be de-
prived Of it except by due course of law. Yet
men are taken prisoners of war without any
process of civil taw And vet the Constitution
is not violated for military law is a well defined
code, which the Constitution recognizes, and
which existed long before Constitution. So the
Constitution provides that "the privilege Of the
writ of fha6eas corpus shall not be suspended"
and then it recognizes that q State of war does
suspend it and il excepts that condition. The
holding of prisoners Of war in defiance of the
writ of habeds corpus is not violation of the
Constitutional provision, because that recognizes
that war suspends athe privilege of the writ"
AS the Constitution does not authorize any
body to suspend the writ but recognizes that it
NAV be suspended by war the question is, who
shall suspend it? In the first place, the Consti-
tuition recognizes the suspension as necessarily
following a State of war; or as suspended by
acts of war In the second place war suspends
the writ whether there is any formal declaration
or not; else if we had Judge who was traitor
enough he could follow our army after its bat
ties and release every prisoner of war as fast as
they were taken. Nobody pretends that the
commanding officer would be compelled to SUBJ
nit to this or would violate the Constitution by
refusing TO obey such writ. Yet his holding
these prisoners of war against such reasonable
writ, would be a suspension of"tho privilege of
the writ" and, we take it, Just such suspension
as the Constitution recognizes as a necessity of
war
The President as Commander-in-Ch Chief of the
army, can hardly have less power to refuse to
obey this writ than his subordinate officers have.
Congress never yet suspended the writ. Gen.
Jackson suspended it in New Orleans by de-
claring martial law, which suspend all civil pro-
cess. Congress justified him in it. That is the
only precedent we have in this Government for
the suspension of the writ 1t will hardly be
pretended that the COmmander-in-chi cannot
suspend the writ, if his subordinate officer can.
Furthermore this is the safest place to have this
power. The President, in exercisingit, may be
made accountable to Congress by impeachment,
and may be controlled by the power of Congress
over the supplies. No President would dare
use this power oppressively. On the contrary,
if Congress should exercise it, it might suspend
the writ over the whole nation, first declaring
it in rebellion; and 1t may be remembered that
the declarations of Congress have not always
been restricted to the truth.
Suppose we take those who attack the Presi-
dent for exercising this power, and who insist
that it is solely IN Congress, In the trap into
which they would run. Then they would put
1t IN the power OF partlzan majority IN Con-
gress at this time, constitutlonaIly to suspend
the writ OF haboas corpus over this whole nation,
for such a length of time as they choose, and
with 1t to suspend all laws and Constitutions,
and establish military despotlsm, for without
any protection against imprisonment without
warrant OF law, how could any legal or cOnstitu-
tonal rights exlstE AND irom this there would
be no appeal or redress.
The President IS not authorized to declare
war, and has not; but he is authorized to resist
war upon the nation, and has done it. The
President is required "to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed" and ne has done no
more than was required to execute this duty
He is authorized to call out troops to repel in
vasion and suppress insurrection, and he has
called no more than was absolutely needed.
He has the right to preserve the Government
from being overthrown, either by foreign inva-
sion or clvll war, TO the extent OF calling out
every able bodied man and dollar in the country.
The public safety IS the supreme law. Consti-
tutions are made only to promote the safety OF
gS,artai law anJ haid en son
ali the property subject to the public defence
Tn case of n foreipn invasion threatening the des