Holmes County farmer. [volume] (Millersburg, Ohio) 1857-1926, 1863-07-09

II then you would understand the law
Of March 3, 1868, remember it was in.
tended expressly to ignore the right oi
the President to issue that proclamation,
without authority from Congress. The
first section Substantially disallows the
right Of the President to suspend the writ
without the assent Of Congress thereto.
The other section quoted provides civil
trial for those arrested.
Would you know the motive which
prompted the law Of March =? Read the
debates Of the last session. The arbitrary
arrests of the last summer were condemn
ed at the last fall elections. In Vermont,
in Massachusetts, in New York. in New
Jersey, in Iowa in Ohio-everywhere
far and aloof ftom military precincts,
such arrests were made. The names Of
the victims are9familiar. The election
operated, as the miracle of old did, to
open the prison doors. When, on the
I frs; day Of tho last session, ] offered a
resolution denouncing these arrests, and
calling on the President to stop hem, it
was voted down by the Republicans; yet
many of their best men refused to sane
ton such proceedings. Cowan, Brown
ing. Kellogg and others. felt the necessity
Of providing for the relief'of all civilians
from military arrest and trial. They di-
gested this plan OF turning them over to
the civil authorities for indictment, trial
and punishment, or discharge.
Thus was secured, by the last Republi-
can Congress, that penal trial upon which
Montesquieu thought "that chiefly the
liberty of the citizen depended" Thus
was secured that "key-stone Of a nation s
public lava fair penal trial, without
which liberty is but sounding name.
In Ohio, there had been no suspension
of the writ of haJeas corpus. 1t was,
therefore, the duty of Judge Leavitt to
see to it that Mr.. Vallandigham had the
benefit Of the writ.
The implication of the law have quo
ted, to say nothing Of the constitutional
right of every one imprisoned, as Of course,
to have the writ, required the Judge To
issue it. What business was it of his
whether General Burnside would or would
not execute it ? He must have known
the history of the writ of freedom-oi
this glorious result OF the long struggle
between law and power He must have
learned that the law had triumphed in the
struggle, and that however it might be in
! France, where an iron rod was the staff
of Justice, in America and England, at
common law, individual liberty and pub.
lie justice were not empty words to make
"earth sick and heaven weary" but prac
teal realities, made so by the indepen-
dence of the judiciary and the majesty
Of law.
SO long as the writ had not been sus
pended in Ohio, nor martial law declared
he had no right to refuse it even to the
meanest criminal. Had he allowed it, how
do we know but that General Burnside
would have taken counsel of the attorney
General, Mr.. Bates. who, as an honest Off
Ger would have advised that Gen, Burn
side should either have returned the body
or have complied with the law of March 3,
! 1868, and have at once notified the Judge
that he could not return the body, by rea
son of the suspension of haJeas corpus in
Ohio; or, perhaps, the Secretary Of War
might have handed in the name of Val
landigham to the Judge for educ process
Of law" by indictment and trial in o5edi-
ence to the law Of March Sd, 1868.
By the failure or neglect Of Mr.. Stanton
to comply with his part of the law Of
March Sd, 1868, it is now impossible to
comply with its provisions, since Mr.. Val
landigham is removed, by the act Of our
military, outside its lines, If Mr. Val
landigham's name were placed upon the
list sent to Judge Leavitt, it is now too
late to afford him the civil trial, provided
by the Republican Congress.
When such Republican papers as the
Evening Post and N. Y. 1nJane, con-
demn such proceedings, when such mod
crate and historic journal as the National
Lntell;gencer protests, when the New Iork
World never friendly to Vallandigham' s
peace notions, utters its indignant and
noble remonstrances-shall we, the party
which has ever been jealous of the en-
croachments of power, fail to speak? AS
your Representative during the Congress
which enacted the laws referred to, | de-
clare to you that the avowed object Of tina
legislation was to save the nation from
, any moro of the disgraceful scenes of the
last summer, when citizens were seizeC
without warrant, imprisoned without law
e and dismissed without hearing.
In uttering your protest against this IN
fraction of law, fellow citizens, you Civ
} the best assurances of your fidelity to tb'
Government. If the present Admisistra
ton desire to provoke no hostility to the
laws; if they would cultivate the respect
: OF the opposition; if they would that the
people, North and South, should look to
: them as the honored ministers of justice
5 let them heed the appeals of their own
l wise men and journals, and stop instant
ly this system of unexampled terrorism
9 which is slowly but surely producing dis
s integration, distrust and anarchy in soci
| ETY..
+ 2. But if Vallandigham's case is MOI
included in those provided against by the
e laws | have quoted, then it is no Offence
/ al all, unless it be treason. We know
: that treason cannot be tried except II
9 pursuance Of certain fixed Constitutions
n rules, and that these rules have not been
pursued in this case.
g Where then does the chief Executive
y or his agents get this power OF arrest? l
s is said by its advocates to be an implied
y power, belonging TO the commander-in
G chief of the army. In this capacity, l
: is said that he can, in subduing the enc