The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1862-12-18

from punishment; its denia!s Of redress to
those who have been imprisoned without
trial or cause; its subscrviency to partisan
ship; its betrayal of the privileges of the
people in closing the courts against them.
/ Above all, there is the surrender by the
legislative to the executive department OF
;he government of power impossible to be
alienated, Stevens himself said he doubted
the authority of the President to suspend
the writ of habeas corpus. The power be-
longed to Congress. The President, or
Stanton, it is difficult to determine which,
usurped the power, and Congress justiGes
Congress placed itself at the feet of a Pres
dent or Secretary OF War 10 Ee smitten or
smiled upon as their humors may dictate.
Truly our abolition Congress has learned
to crook the pregnant hinges of the
knee" bu; it remains to be determined II
thri!t shall follow fawning.
Let us look at the justification offered
BY Stevens for the Introduction Of the bill.
He said it had been carefully copied from
preceden:s of the English Parliament for
the last two centuries. What have prece
dents of the English Parliament to do with
the action Of our Congress? Precedent>
derived from a Government that is Gesti-
tu,e Of a constitution, cannot justify viola
tons OF our constitution That our lar :.
guase is similar, and that we have many
principles in law in common, will not be
plead as reason for adopting English leg
isIaiion when it plainly contravenes the
constitution of our government. This
question was settled years ago by more
eminent statesmen than grace the presen.
Congress Ii Mr. Stevens assertion had
been true 1t would have been no defense OF
his bill Bat il is not true. We have not
the statutes OF the English Parliament be
fore us, but we have no hesltancy in say
ing that those statutes must be searched
as far back as The reigl Oft he Second
james to lind psecedents for such a bill. -
Such bills were 'squelched' by Son ers'
declaration OF rights and subsequent ac-
ton by the English Parliament during the
reign of William and Mary. McCauley
' c.l Il
ton Of l6SS-9, that No man could be
imprisoned, even .or day, BY the arbi
trary will of the soverei IN; 10 tool Of pow.
er could Plead the royal command as a us
tticat on for violating any legal right OF
the humblest subject. These were held
by both wings and tories to be fundament-
al laws of the realm"
Mr.. Stevens may find in the reign OF
James the Second. AMI the Conduct of Jef-
fries as Judge, precedcnts for Illegal ar
rests and arbitrary imprisonm ents, but we
doubt if, in single instance during that
reign, the English Parliament was so lost
| TO hoOnr and lnsensibie TO shame as TO pro
pose making ''void" the crimes of the
King or his creature. When the Bishop
of London was brought before Jeflres tor
not suspending Spraut, he demanded a
copy of the commission appointed to try
him, that he might examine its authority
Said Jeil'res, This is not court where
charge, are exhibited; our proceedings are
summary and BY word of mouth" 1t was
for such acts and answers that James was
driven from his throne, and Jelliies died
in The Tower. American citizens have
been arrested without written char ges be-
ing preferred against them-tried and
condemned, no. by word OF mouth, but by
telegraph Chicago Times.
The Shinplaster Party.