Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-06-09
Srlette0 9fllstellanp.
Martial Law.

1t is exceedingly difficult to understand where
the reason of some of our radical neighbors has
flown. They adopt any theory, however wild and
untenable. which seem TO operate in favor of the
results which they desire to accomplish, and this
with such recklessneSs of consequences, such dis
regard of ordinary principles of reason and sound
sense, that it is impossible to reconcile their couse
with the most common rules of prudence, good
judgment and safe policy. In nothing has this
been more thoroughly illustrated than in the theo-
retic use of martial law" and the "war power"
1t ought to be very clear to any ordinary COM
prehensiOn that no legitimate power can ever rise
higher than its source. The idea that a servant
of the Constitution, President, or a Congress-
or a General, can under any circumstances hold
and use lawful power which is higher than the
Constitution from which they derive authority, is
so plainly subversive of Government and tending
TO anarchy that it should need no cOnfuting in
the minds of Americans. Nevertheless it has
gained a strong hold in many places, and has
been the pet scheme of the radical men fOr
accomplishing what the Constitution failed to
do" 1t seems to have been left for
the EUeRinq Post to run this doctrine ef-
fectuallv "into the ground" and this is admi-
rably done in article on the unhappy state
of things in Washington growing out of the con-
hict between Gen. WadswOrth and the United
States Marshal of the District. The Post that
Martial law is in force in the District of Co
slumbia." That this is the necessary result of the
appointment of General Wadsworth Military
Governor; that ''as long martial law remains
in force the civil magistrates and other officers
are necessarily Subordinate to those appointed by
the military power, or else the community is in a
state of anarchy" and that "if two supreme au-
thOrties exist in the District all order must
be at an end" and further, that in the matter in
dispute "the military authority is supreme"
Here we have a clear and definite statement of
the existence of martial law, as the Post under
stands it, We don't believe a word of it, but that
is not to the point at present.
Now there Is certain person in Washington
commonly known as the President of the United
States. There is body of Legislators at Wash
ingtOn known as the Congress of the United
States. These two authorities, the President and
Congress, are commonly supposed to exercise all
the functions of the government of the nation
and of the District of Columbia. But martial
law, our neighbOrs teach, is the supreme power,
and all "Other officers are necessarily subordinate
TO those appointed by the military power else
the community is in a state of anarchy"
Here is an excellent opportunity for our radi-
cal friends to test the truth OF their martial la
and war power doctrines Last fall they con-
tended that FremOnt's power by virtue of martial
law was absolute to the exclusion of all other
law. Last week the Post declared that General
Hunter having proclaimed martial law, become
by that fact the supreme Governor of the terri
tory under his command, and had uncuestion-
ed right to deal with slaves and slavery as the
circumstances of the case might require. He
could send them out of the country, if he chose -
and we need not remind the Post of its argument
that slaves once freed could never be restored to
slavery. What, then is Gen Wadsworth's DOW
er in Washington, suppOsing the theory that mar
tial law exists there, TO be correct? Can he deal
with Congress and members of Congress as
4. i
and slavery2" OF course we shall not be told
that the military power over slaves is any great
er than over white men. Can Gen. WadswOJth
send the President and bis Cabinet, and the Sen
atOrs and Representatives ssout of the countryl'
And if not, why not? Can the General declare
Congress abOlished-suspended- d-banished-can
he veto acts. can be forbid legislation?
It will not do to say that the military power Of
General WadswOrth is subject to the civil power
Of Congress. because that is precisely what the
Post says tits not Besides, that would be con-
ceding all that we conservative thinkers claim,
that the war power is subject to Congress and the
Constitution, in other words is subject to the Law,
and cannot make law for itself. The Post will
probably not vouchsafe an explanation of its doc
trine. We find il difficult TO obtain a reply to
the questions we put to our radical neghbOrs
when their arguments lead into a labyrinth such
as this manifeslly Is. But we imagine that a Sc
ries of questions Oh this subject would be an
sNered very much In this way Can Gen. Wads-
worth. By virtue of Martial Law in Washington,
override the Presdentg No. Can he suspend
the Constitution? No, Can he decree divorce
between the venerable Senator'S aud their excel
lent wives? 30. Can be confscate the property
of an abolition-disunionist No. Can he free a
SLAYER No But why the sudden change from
No to Yes? The only answer is found in the
slang, bat in this case very expressive phrase, be
cause there's niger in that fence. IN. Y.
Journal Of Commerce