The Portland daily press., 1862-12-20

|
to suppose that he would not do what every
man OF right feeling under the circum-
stances would do. fit is so, and ifthat is
plain duty, how much higher duty rests upon
the President of theUnited States to protect
the life of the nation by taking the law into his
| own hands, under the oath he has sworn to
preserve, protect and defend it?
Has the President done any more than this /?
Tor am talking of him; not of the Secretary
OF war, or of the Secretary ofState, or anybody
else. Has there been anything more than this ?
Gentlemen do not pretend it. WE'LL sir, no
crime may have been committed; there may
have been no intention to commit crime as
defined in the statutebook; but let us take an
other illustration, one that was alluded to by
| the honorable Senator from Ohio Mr.. SHER-
MAN the other day. Take the case of the
members of the Maryland Legislature. The
President believed, and the world believes at
this day-so far as the world knows any
thing about it-that those members of the
| Maryland Legislature meant, If they got to-
gether, to take that State out of the Union,
and carry it into secession. Nobody doubts it.
i ask the Senator If he had been President of
the United States, under the same circumstan-
ces, would he not have prevented their meet
| ing?
Mr.. KENNEDY. There was no evidence of that
sort that was made public at the time, and that
has been made known up to the present period.
1t is mere matter of surmise. do not know
what the facts are.
Mr.. Fessenden. grant all that, and that is
precisely the ground on which am arguing. /
say that although there was perhaps no legal
evidence of their intention, which would be
admissible in court of justice, there was
evidence enough to satisfy the mind of any
reasonable man who knew anything about it.
There was evidence enough to satisfy the
President upon the subject. He believed that
was their intention, and believing as he did, |
ask the honorable Senator whether it was not
his duty to prevent it, by incarcerating the
members and prevent their meeting at all?
Mr.. Kennedy. will state that ifthe Presi-
dent had indubitabe evidence of that sort. it
was certainly his duty to do so; but up to this
time that charge has never yet been made.
These men have been discharged without
charge having been made against them.
Mr.. Fessenden. Undoubtedly, because the
time has gone by. This is precisely what am
saying. The President, we suppose. had the
evidence. Do you doubt it-that is TO say, do
you doubt that he was satisfied in his own
mind that the fact was so? Does any one
doubt it? believe to this day that the fact
was so. believe there is very little doubt in
the public mind on the subject. There GER
tainly was none in his. No man here intimates
and no man anywhere intimates, that he did not
entertainatth opinion. Ifhe had not entertain
ed it, there was no earthly motive for him to do
leved that great crime was contemplated,
which, if it had been carried into effect, would
have been fraught with consequences so disas-
trous that the human mind shrinks from the
contemplation OF them, can it be doubted that
he did what he ought to have done, and that
he was perfectly justifiable? Would the hon
orabe Senator from Delaware tell me that the
President was not justified under the oath
which he had taken to protect, preserve, and
defend the Constitution of the United States ?
Mr.. Bayard. That would depend ON the
grounds of his belief. 1t is not necessary to
impute to the President error of intention be-
cause you might believe him perfectly honest
in intention, and yet commit gross errors of
Judgment.
Mr.. Foster. Only question as to the in
tention.
Mr.. Fessenden. Precisely; and that is the
only question at issue, by the confessisn- of
Senators. There is the point at which have
been laboring. If the President believes that
these men are about to commit offenses which
are dangerous to the body-politic in this time
of trouble, is he justifable in arresting their
persons and confining them? Senators say,
yes; but they want to know the grounds.
Well, sir, that is pardonable curiosity; but
suppose the President does not choose to tell
you the grounds: he is responsible to the
American people. Isupposed there would be
no resisting this view of the case. 1t is too
pdlpdDIe III Il tInt Oh rebellion ike TINS. IL
too palpable when the very life of the Repub-
lie is at stake. No man can question not only
what the right of the Chief Magistrate of the
nation is, but what is his bounden duty under
such circumstances. Why, sir, / should des-
pise myselfif placed in such q situation, |
could hesitate to lay my hand upon any citizen
In violation even of what are private rights Sc
cured by the Constitution, If l thought it nee
essary to do so in order to protect the Repub-
los n maj MN ha fr.r
that great place who could have one single in
stants hesitation upon such point as that
Senators on the other side agree with me. /
am happy that they too come to that conclu-
sion.
Then the question is very simple one; can
We trust the President of the United States
Has there been any abuse of power? Has
there been any evidence, in any quarter, that
on any occasion, in any single instance, men
have been incarcerated simply for the purpose
of personal oppression? Can gentlemen point
me to the instance where the President OF the
United States by any one OF his Secretaries, has
used this power in order to wreak private
malice upon any individual; where they have
ever, in any one case, laid their hands upon a
man when they did not believe it to be neces-
sary in order to the protection of the Repub-
lie? have heard no complaint of that kind.
Then, sir, the question addresses itself to
this side of the House, have we confidence in
the good intentions of the President of the
United States? Do we believe that he has
abused the power intrusted to his hands for
bad purposes? Do we believe that he has will
fully, unnecessarily violated the rights of any
single individual in the prosecution of the
great work that he had in hand to protect and
preserve the country? II we do not, then let
us 60 little further and ask ourselves, do the
people believe it? Undertake to say that the
people believe no such thing, and they have
rendered no such verdict. / have no doubt
there is a certain portion of the population of
the United State, worked upon by bad news
papers and wicked men-men who sympathize
vastly more with our enemies than with the
great cause of the country = who think, be-
cause they do not understand the circumstan-
ces, that the President is going too Ear in vio-
lating private rights; but, sir, the mind of the
country is an informed, educated mind, as q
general rule. 1t looks at the motives of all
these denunciations; it looks not only at the
acts of the President, but upon the necessity
which brings about those acts; and thus look
ment upon what he does.
Sir, hold,-and may be accused, perhaps,
of not exactly understanding quite so much
about private rights as my honorable friends on
the other side of the Chamber-I hold that the
safety of the Republic is the supreme law. 1t
is an old maxim which nobody learned earlier,
and understands better than the honorable
Senator from Delaware, Mr.. Bayard. He is
not only ascholar but alawyer, and the learned
disquistion which he has given us more than
once upon private rights and the nature of gov
ernment, shows that there is no particular part