Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1863-06-30

NV ~ ouoDSHdSu uulSSS WITCH, III SooO VI
rebellion or invasion, the public safety may
require it," is the provision which specially
applies to our present case. This proyis-
Ion plainly attests the understanding o.
those who made the Constitution that or.
binary courts of justice are inadequate to
ceases Of rebellion" -attests their purpose
that, In such cases, men may be held in
custody whom the courts, acting on ordi-
nary rules. would discharge. Habeas cor
pus does not discharge men who are prov.
ed TO be guilty Of defined crime; and its
suspension is allowed BIZ the Constitution
on purpose that men may be arrested and
held who cannot be proved guilty of defn-
ed crime, "when, in cases of rebellion or in
vasion, the public safety may require it. y
This is precisely our present casa case
Of rebellion wherein the public safety does
require the suspension. Indeed, arrests by
process of courts and arrests in cases of re-
belion do not proceed altogether upon the
same basis. The former is directed at the
small percentage Of ordinary and continu-
Gus preparation of crime, while the latter
Is directed at sudden and extensive upris-
ings againsts the Government, which, at
most, will succeed or fail in no great length
Of time. In the latter case arrests are
not so much for what has been done, as for
what probably would be done. The latter
is more for the preventive and less for the
vindictve than the former. In such cases
the purposes of men are much more easily
understood than in cases of ordinary crime.
The man who stands by and says nothing
when the peril of his country is discussed
cannot be misunderstood If not hindered
he is sure to help the enemy; much more
if he talks ambiguously-talks for his coun-
Try With shuts" and "ifs" and sands" Of
how little value the constitutional proyis.
ions | have quoted be rendered, if arrests
shall never be made until defined crimes
shall have been committed, may be illus
trated by 9 few notable examples. Gener-
al John G. Breckenridge, General Robert
<. Lee, General Joseph E. Johnston, GEN
eral John B. Magruder, General William
b. Preston, General Simon B. Buckner
and Commodore Franklin Buchanan, now
occupying the very highest places in the
rebel war service, Were all within the pow
er of the Government since the rebellion
began, aud were nearly as well know n to
be traitors then as now. Unquestionably
if we had seized and held them the lnsur-
gent cause would be much weaker. But
no one of them had then committed any
crime defined in the law. Every one Of
them, if arrested, would have been dis
charged on habeas corpus Were the writ
allowed to operate. In view Of these and
similar cases, think tbs time not unlikely
to come when | shall BE- blamed for having
made toe few arrests rather than Too many.
BY the third resolution the meeting in
d;cate their opinion that nilitary arrests
may be constitutional in localities where
rebellion actually exists, but that such ar
rests are unconstitutional in localities where
rebellion OF insurrecteon does not actually
exist. They insist that such arrests shall
not be made "outside of the lines of neces-
sary military occupation, and the scenes OF
insuirection." Inasnuch, however, as the
Constitution itself makes no such distinc-
lion. concede that the class of arrests
complained of can be constitutional only
when, in cases Of rebellion or invasion, the
public safety may require them; and insist
that in such cases they are coDstitut nj
achereue the public safety does require
them; as well in places to which they may
prevent The rebellion extending, as in those
where it may be already prevailing; as well
where they may restrain mischieyous IN
reference with the raising and supplying
of armies to suppress the rebellion, as
where the rebellion may actually be; as
well where they may restrain the enticns
men out of the army, as where they would
prevent mutiny in the army; equally con-
stitutiona at all places where they will
conduce to the public safety, as against the
dangers of rebellion or invasion. Take the
particular case mentioned by the meeting,
1t is asserted, in substance that Mr.. Val
landighan was, by military commander,
seized and tried efor no other reason than
words addressed to a public meeting in
criticism of the course OF the admlnlstra
ton, and in condemnation of the military
orders of the General" Now. if there be
no mistake about this; if this assertion be
the truth, and the whole truth; if there
was no other reason for the arrest, then
ooncede that the arrest was wrong. But
the arrest, as | understand, was made foi
a different reason. Mr. Vallandigham
avows his hostility to the war on the part
of the Union; aud bis arrest was made be-
cause he was laboripg, with some effect, to
prevent the raising of troops; to encourage
desertion from the army; and to leave the
rebellion without an adequate military force
to suppress it. lie was not arrested be-
cause be was damaging the political pros
poets of the Administration, or the person
ii interests of the commanding General,
but because be was damaging the army,
upon the existence and vigor Of which the
life Of the nation depends. lie was war
ring upon the military, and this gave the
military constitutional jurisdiction to lay
bands upon him. II Mr.. Vallandigham
was not damaging the military power OF
the country, then his arrest was made on
mistake Of fact. which | would be glad to