The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1863-06-03


avs down what il claims 10 be ''the law OF the
.Ase" in the matter OF the arrest OF NAlandig-
ban. That paper attempts TO prove sy Ibis
means. that the arrest Oi this traitor was IN Oh
rect violation Of Law. If this we're conclusively
proved, then, not only Gen Burnside, bat the
Presiden. himself would be liable TO the penalty
affixed TO the violation Of the isW. The IHtsiH-
cenesr fret quotes from " An sct 20 suppress
10 punish treason and rebellion aid
for other purposes" approved July IT, 1852 |
a. follows
Sec. >. Ind be It further enacted That
II snv person shall hereafter incte. act on foot,
assist. or engage in ary rebellion or iusarrecuon
against the authority OF the United States, Or
the AVS thereof, or shal give aid sr comfort
thereto. or shall en- gage in or give aid ard com
fort 20 any such existing rebellion or insGrrec-
ton, AID be convicted thereof, saeh pefsoa shAl
Se punished By Imprisonment tor period lot
exceeding ten wears, or by fine not exceeding
ten. thousand collars, or oy the Liberation OF al
his slaves if any be have; or by both OF said
ounishments At the discretion Of the court
See :: Aud &c II further enacttd, That eT-
efv person gsity OF either OF the offences de
scriDed 10 this act, SHALL be forever dise.4iihed
10 hold any Office under the United States
Il then makes the f0llo~ing quotation from
the same act, to show he power possessed by
! the United States Court 20 carry out the pro-
visions Of this act:
sec Il And b Il farth-r enacted. That
the courts Of the United States shall have iuil
power TO institute proceedings, make orders
and DEGREES, issue process, and do all other
] - To effect.
IA els a. st-.~d clio. .be [. =. oo-rts
should have not only "iu'' bat exclusive power
10 carry this act into effect, the case would have
been settled Neither State. military, Ror any
other authority could have interfered. This
" despoti-m" would have been the peculiar prov
ince of the q s Courts.
But. as all are aware, the military authorities
DID see a to maze arrests Of persons guilty OF
giving aid aud con.rt TO those in rebellion
against the United States As this gave rise TO
much dispute concerning the rightful authority
OF he Government 10 make such arrests Con-
gress subsequently passed law relating TO
ha5eas corpus, and regulating Judicial proceed
ings in csrtaia cases, approved March ;, 1868
Congress no doubt intended, by this act. to set
tie the disputed question, and the IntelItgsHeeT
so understands it. That paper quotes that p0r-
tor Of the act relevant to the case Of Mr. Val
laudigbam," iEcludiBg the first section which
reads as follows:
"Be Il enacted 5v the Senate and House o.
ReBresentatires fine United States at America
"a Congress assembled, That during the present
rebellion, the President 81 the United States
: I'D,
NAV require it, is authorized to suspend the wri
Of haBeas corpus ia any case hrsus kola the Uni
ted States, or IN any part thereof Ard when
, ever aud wherever the said privilege shall be
c suspended, as aforesaid, no military other Of
tcer shall be compelled 10 answer 10 any writ .
hdbGs corpus, 10 return the body OF any person
or persons detained by him by the authority o
the President; but upon the certificate Ende
oath, OF the officer having charge Of ans one 81
detained that such person IS detained BY hin
az a prisoner uuder authority of the P esident
further proceedings Under the writ Of habea
corpus shall be suspended by the judge cour
r having issued the said writ, 50 long as said sus
E pension BY the President shall remain in fore
, and said rebellion continue"
p The hptelIieeneer tries to parry the force Q
this provision of the statste, by stating, in par
entheses, that he privilege Of the writ of hsbsa
I corpus "hss not been suspended in Ohio" an
that therefore, mo judge in that State is su
I thOrized to suspend proceedings issued uude
this writ" But the law authorizes the Presi
dent to suspend the writ in aHy CASE mot State
throughout the United States, or any par
thereof" 'wheuever in bis judgment the put
lie safety nay require H." This does not in
| volve the necessity Of suspending the wri
: throughout an entire State, and therefore tn
argument of the Lntelligencer falls to the ground
The fact that the President approved the sen
teRce OF the commission in the case Of Vsllsn
dghan, Is to NJ, suiiicien. proof that in thi
Ease" be did suspend the privilege OF the h4b-
as corpus a. be has right By law to do.
, While We fully agree with the Iateilisneee
that, "Congress by It's recent legislation antici
pated precisely such a case as that raised b,
the alleged conduct and language OF Valandig
hsm, and has thus made provision for the emer
gency," we iailto reach the conclusions at which
it arrives concerning the manner in which th,
aforesaid recent legislation" applies Also il
assuming to give this law, il seems to rs that i
has overlooked a section of the Act relating u
ha6eas corpus, being the one quoted from
sbove-wbich has important bearing upor
the case. Section fonr of this act is as fol
lows:
Section T. And be 1t further enacted, Tha
any order Of the President or under his au
thsrity, sde at any time during the existence
OF the present rebellion, shall be a defence il
all courts 10 any action or prosecution, civil OF
/ criminal, pending, or to be commenced for any
search, seizure, arrest or imprisonment. made
done, committed or acts omitted to be done
under and BY virtue Of such order, or under col
or Of any la'S Of Congress, and such defeust
NAV be made by special plea, or under the gen.
eral issue
Now, if the "erder Of the President" be con
elusive defence in the cases mentioned We thi0E
the deductions Of the Iatelligeneer are clearly
incorrect.
Mares Nest.
! The Journal under the head of "a monar.