Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1863-07-03


proved TO be guilty Of defined crime; and its sus-
pension is allowed by the Constitution on pur-
pose that men may be arrested and held who
can not be proved TO be guilty of defined crime,
when is cases of rebellion or invasion, the pub
lie safety may require it."
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 rebellion, do not
proceed together on the same basis. The for
mer is directed at the small per centage of ordn-
airy and continuous preparation of crime while
the latter is directed at sudden and extensive
uprisings against the Government, which at
most will succeed or fail in no great length Of
time. In the latter case, arrests are made, 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 vindictive than
the former. In such cases the purposes of men
are more easily understood than in cases of or
dinary crime. The man who stands by. and
says nothing when the peril of his Government
is discussed cannot be understood. Ifnot hind
cred, he is sure to help the enemy; much more
If he talks biguously-talks for his country
with "buts" and "ifs" and lands" OF how lit
tie value the constitutional provisions / have
quoted will be rendered, if arrests shall never be
made until defined crimes shall have been COM
mitted, may be illustrated by few notable ex-
amples General John O. Breckenridge Gener-
General John B Magruder, General William B.
Preston, General Simon B. Buckner and Com.
Franklin Buchanan, now occupying the very
highest places in the rebel war service were all
within the power of the Government since the
rebellion began, and we're nearly as well known
to be traitors then now. Unquestonaby, IL
we had seized and held them the insurgent canse
would be much weaker. But no one Of them
had then committed any crime defined in the
law. Every one of them, ifarrested, would have
been discharged on hebeas corpus, were the writ
allowed to operate. In view Of these and sim
liar cases, think the time not unlikely to come
when / shall be blamed for having made too
few arrests than too many.
By The third resolution the meeting indicate
their opinion that military arrests may be con
sttutonal in localities where rebellion actually
exists, but that such arrests are unconstitutional
in localities where rebellion or insurrection does
not actually exist They insist that such ar
rests shall not be made "outside of the lines OF
necessary military occupation and scenes of in-
surrecton." 1nasmuch, however, the Con-
stiution itself makes no such distinction, / am
unable 10 believe that there is any such consti
tutional distinction. | conclude that the clas.
1 ofarrests complained ofcan be constitutional on.
| ly when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, tn,
public safety may require them; and insis
| that in such cases they are constitutional wher
ever the public safety does require them, as vel
in places TO which they may prevent the rebel
| lion extending as in those where it may be al
ready prevailing; well where they may re.
ST. ain mischievious interference with the raising
and supplying ofarmies to suppress the rebell-
| ion, as where the rebellion may actually be; as
well where they may restrain the enticing OF
men out of the army, as where they would pre-
vent munity in the army; equally constitutional
at all places where they will conduce to the
public safety, against The dangers of rebellion
or invasion. Take the particular case mention.
ed by the meeting. 1t is asserted, in substance
that Mr.. Vallandigham was, by a military com.
mander seized and tried "for no other reason
| than words addressed TO a public meeting, in
criticism of the course ofthe Administration, and
in condemnation of the military orders of the
General" Now, if there be no mistake about
| this; if this assertion is the truth and the whole
truth; if there no other reason for the arrest
then | concede that the arrest was wrong. Blu
the arrest, as l understand, was made for very
different reason Mr.. Vallandigham avows hi
hostility to the war on the part of the Union
and his arrest was made because he was labor
| ing, with some effect to prevent the raising o
| troops to encourage desertions from the army
and to leave the rebellion without an adequate
military force to suppress it. He was not ar
, rested because he was damaging the politica
prospects of the Administration, or the persona
, interests of the commanding general, but be
cause he was damaging the army, upon the ex
isence and vigor of which the life of the natio
, depends. He was warning upon the military
+ and this gave the military constitutional juris
diction to lay hands upon him. If Mr. Valland
, igham was not damaging the military power G
the country, then his arrest was made on mis-
take of fact, which / would be glad to correct OF
reasonably satisfactory evidence.
II understand the meeting, whose resolution
] I am considering, to be in favor of suppressinI
! the rebellion by military force-by armies.-
/ Long experience has shown that armies can no
be maintained unless desertion shall be punishe,
by the severe penalty of death. The case re
quires, and the law and the Constitution sanct
ion, this punishment. Must | shoot simple
minded soldier boy who deserts, while / mus
not touch hair of willy agitator who induce
; him to desert? This is none the less injuriou
when effected by getting father or brother @
friend into apublic meeting and there workin
upon his feelings till he is persuaded to writ
the soldier boy that he is fighting in a ba
cause, for wicked Administration ofa contemp
tible Government, too weak to punish him if h
shall desert think that in such a case to sill
ence the agitaor and save the boy is not onl,
constitutional, but withal great mercy.
: If be wrong on this question of constitution
s al power my error lies in believing that certai
; proceedings are constitutional when, in cases q
rebellion or invasion, the public safety require
A them, which would not be constitutional wheI
a in absence of rebellion or invasion, the publ
safety does not require Jnem. In Otner WORD
: that the constitution is not, in it's application,
all respects the same in cases of rebellion or il
!; vasion involving the public safety, as it is
n times of profound peace and public security
s The constitution itself makes the distinction
e and / can no more be persuaded that the Gov
II ernment can cOnstitutionally take no stron
e measures in time of rebellion, because it can |
n shown that the same could not be lawfully TAX
h en- in TIME of peace, than that can be persuad
: ed that a particular drug is not good medcu
n for a sick man, because it can be shown not t
e be good for a well one. Nor am able 10 aprt
y ciate the danger apprehended by the meetin
J. that the American people will, by means of mi
S itary arrests during the rebellion lose the rigl
< of public discussion the liberty of speech an
d the press, law Of evidence trial by jury and hi
e beas corpus, throughout the indefinite peacefl
c future, which trust lies before them, any mol
y than l am able TO believe that a man can cor
! tract so strong an appetite for emetics during
d temporary illness as to persist in feeding upo
I, them during the remainder of his healthful lif
IS In giving the resolutions that earnest consiC
2; Grafton which you request of me, cannot owe
y look the fact that the meeting speak as "dem'
i Gratis" Nor can l. with full respect for the
n known intelligence, and the fairly presumed
l. liberation with which they prepared their res
al lutions, be permitted to suppose that this occu
st red by accident, or in any way other than tn
n they preferred TO designate themselves 'dem
10 Gratis" rather than "American citizens" In tn
l. time of national peril would have preferred