The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1863-06-19

whatever The rebellion thus began soon rai
into the present civil war and, IN certain ~
spects, IL began on very unequal terms oe.mee.
the parties. The insurgents had been. P,epnr
inc for II more tban thirty years, while tho
government had taken no steps 10 res,s' men y,
The former had carefully considered oil Tho
means which could be turned To their account
n undonbtedly was u well pondered relanct
with them that in their own unrestricted effort:
10 destroy Union, Constitution and oil togeth
or. the government would, in great degree
be restrained by the same Constitution ant
law from arresting their progress. Their sym
pathizers peryaded all departments OF the gov.
eminent and nearly all communities OF the peo
pie. From this material under the cover o
''lberty Of speech" ''liberty Of the press, y
and "ha6eas corpus" they hoped to keep on
foot among US most efficient corps Of spies
informers, suppliers. and aiders and abettors Of
their cause in thousand ways. They knew
that In times such rs they were inaugurating
BY the Constitution itself the "habeas corpus
might be suspended (; but they also knew they
had friends who would make q question as to
,rho was 10 suspend il; meanwhile their spies
aud others might remain ut large to help on
their cause. Or IL, rs has happened, the Exec
utiye should suspend the writ. without ruinous
waste to them, instances of arresting innocent
persons might occur. rs are always likely to in
such cases and then clamor could be raised
in regard 10 this. which might be ut least, OF
some service 10 the insurgent cause. II needed
no very keen perception to discover this part
of the programme, so soon as by open hostilities
their machinery was fairly put in motion. Yet
thoroughly imbued with reverence for the
guaranteed rights Of individuals, was slow
10 adopt the strong measures which by degrees
| have been forced to regard within the excep-
tons of the Constitution, and rs indispensable
to the public safety. Nothing Is better known
to history than that courts of justice are utterly
incompetent to such cases. Civil courts are or
gained chiefly for trials Of individuals, or, nj
most, q few individuals acting in concert and
this in quiet times, and on charges OF crimes
well defined in the law. Even in times Of peace
bands of horse-theiyes and robbers frequently
grow too numerous and powerful for the ordi.
in numbers, have such bands ever borne TO the
insurgent sympathizers even in many Of the
loyal States Again jury too frequently has
at least one member more ready to hang the
panel than the traitor. And yet, again, he who
dissuades one man from volunteering, or in
duces one soldier TO desert weakens the Union
cause as much rs he who kills Union soldier
in battle. Yet this discussion or iniucement
may be so conducted as to be no defined crime
Of which any civil court would take cognizance.
Ours is case of rebellion-so called by the
resolutions before me lin fact, clear, fragrant,
and gigantic case of rebellion and the proyi-
sions Of the Constitution that "the privilege OF
the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when-in case of rebellion or invasion,
the public safety require it," is the provision
which specially applies to our present case. This
provision plainly attests the understanding OF
those who made the Constitution, that ordinary
courts Of justice are inadequate to leases of
rebellion, '-attests their purpose that, in such
cases, men may be held in custody whom the
courts. setting on ordinary rules, would dis
charge. Habeas corpus does not discharge men
who are proved to be guilty Of defined crime,
and its suspension is allowed by the Consttu-
ton on purpose that men may be arrested and
held who cannot be proved to be guilty Of de-
fined crime, ''when, in case Of rebellion or in.
vasiOn, the public safety may require it," This
Is precisely our present Casa case OF rebellion.
wherein the public safety does require the sus-
pension. Indeed, arrests by process Of courts,
and arrests in cases OF REBELLION, do not pro-
coed altogether upoa the same basis. The for
mer is directed rs the small percentage OF
ordinary and continuous preparation Of crime,
while the latter is directed at sudden and extern
siye uprisings against the Government, which,
at most, win succeed or fall in no great length
OF time. In the latter case, arrests are made,
not SO much for what has been done, rs for
what probably would be done. The latter is
more for the preventive and less for the win:
dictiye than the former. In such cases the
purposes of men are much more easily under
stood than in ordinary crime.
The man who stands by and says nothing
when the peril of government is discussed,
cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered. he
is sure TO help the enemy, much more, IL he
talks ambiguously-talks for his country with
shuts" and "ifs" and sands" OF how little
value the constitutional provisions have quot
ed will be rendered, IL arrests shall never be
made until defined crimes shall have been com,
mitted, may be illustrated by "A few notable ex-
amplcs. General John c. Breckenridge, Gen.
Robert T.. Lee, General Joseph L. Johnston,
General John b. Magiuder, General William B.
Preston, General Simon Il. Buckner, and Com
modore 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 were nearly rs
well known TO be traitors then as now. Un-
uuestionably il We had seized and held them.
the insurgent cause would be much weaker
But no one of them had committed any crime
defined in the law. Every one Of them. IL ar
rested, would have been discharged on hdbeaS
corpus were the writ allowed to operate. In
view Of these and similar cases, | think the
time not unlikely TO come when shall be blamed
for having made too few arrests rather than
too many.
By the third resolution the meeting indicate
their opinion that military arrests may be con-
stituional in localities where rebellion actually
exists, but that sush arrests are unconstitution-
nj in localities where rebellion or instruction
does not actually exist. They insist that such
arrests shall not be made ''outside of the lines
of necessary military occupation, and tho scenes
of instruction" lnasmuch, however, rs the
Constitution itself makes no such distinction, |
am unable to believe that there is any such
constitutional distinction, concede that the
class of arrests complained of can be consttu-
tional only when, in cases Of rebellion or in
vasion, the public safety may require them;
and insist that In such cases they are consti.
tutional ehererer the public safety does require
them; "A we'll in places To which they may pre-
vent the rebellion rs in those where II may be
already prevailing; as well where they may re-
strain mischieyous interference with the raising
and supplying of armies to suppress the rebel
lion may actually be; as well where they may
restrain the enticing men out Of the army, as
where they would prevent mutiny In the army;
equally constitutional nj all places where they
will conduce to the public safety, us against the
dangers of rebellion or invasion. Take the
particular case mentioned by the meeting. 1t
4 asserted, in substance, that Mr.. Vallandig-
ham was, by a military commander, seized and
tried ''for no other reason than words addressed
to public meeting, in criticism OF the course OF
the administration, and in condemnation OF the
military orders Of .hc general" Now, If there
be no mistake about this; II this assertion Is
the truth and the whole truth; IL there was no
other reason for the arrest, then concede that