The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1863-07-02
NUMBER 4.

- Resolutions before me-in fact, a clear, fla
: grant, and gigantic case of rebellion and thu
/ provisions of the Constitution that 'the priv
,, iIege of the writ of habeaS corpus shall not b.
-, suspended unless when, in case of rebellion
4 or invasion, the public safety may require it,
q is the provision which specially applies to oul
present case This provision plainly attests
the understanding of those who made the Con
stitution, that ordinary courts Of justice are
inadequate to ceases of rebellion, "-attests
: their purpose that, in such cases, men may be
o. held in custody whom the courts, acting OIL
Q ordinary rules would discharge. HabeaS cor
puS does not discharge men who are proved
q to be guilty Of defined crime and its suspen-
: sion is allowed by the Constitution on purpose
# that men may be arrested and held who can
not be proved to be guilty of defined crime,
. ''when, in case Of rebellion or invasion, the
$ public safety may require it, This is
f 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-
q coed together upon the same basis. The for
mer is directed at the small per centage of Or
binary and continuous preparation Of crime,
while the latter is detected at sudden and ex-
f tensive 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 lat
ter is more for the preventive and less for the
f vindictive than the former In such cases the
purposes Of men are much more easily under
stood than in cases of ordinary crime. The
man who stands by and says nothing when
the peril of the Government is discussed, can
not be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is
sure to help the enemy much more, he talks
ambiguously- talks for his country, with
'Ebuts" and ''ifs'' and F'andS" OF how little
value the constitutional provisions have quo
ted will be rendered, if arrests shall never be
made until defined crimes shall have been
committed, may be illustrated by few nota-
bic examples Gen. John G. Breckinbridge,
Gen. Robert E. Lee, Gen. Joseph Z. Johnston,
Gen. John B. Magruder, Gen. William B.
Preston, Gen Simon G. Buckner, and Com
modore Franklin Buchanan, now occupying
the very highest places in the rebel war SER
vice, were all within the power of the Govern
ment sncethe rebellion began.and were near
ly as well known to be traitors then as now.
Unquestionably if we had seized and held them
the insurgent cause would be much weaker
But no one of them had then committed any
crime defined in thelaw. Every one of them,
if arrested would have been discharged on
hd6e0s c0YD8S were the writ allowed to ope-
rate. In view of these and similar cases, |
think the time not unlikely to come when |
shall be blamed for having made too few ar
rests rather than too many
By the third resolution the meeting indi
cate their opinion that military arrests may
be constitutional in localities where rebellion
actually exists but that such arrests are I'M
constitutional in localities where rebellion or
instruction does not actually exist. They
insist that such arrests shall not be made 'out
side Of the lines of necessary military occupa
ton and the scenes of insurrecrion." lnas |
much however as the constitution itself |
makes no such distinction, | am unable to be-
lieve that there is any such constitutional dis
tinction. | concede that the class OF arrests
complained of can be constitutional only when,
in cases Of invasion OF rebellion, the public
safety may require them and [ insist that in
such cases they are constitutional a1beTeter the
public safety does require them; as well in
places to which they may prevent the REBEL
ion extending as in those where it may be
already prevailing; as well where it may re-
Observation-Disclosures interference with the rails
ing and supplying Of armies to suppress the
rebellion as where the rebellion actually may
be; as well where they may restrain the Ell
ticing men out Of the army as where they
would prevent mutiny i'll the army; equally
constitutional in all places where they would
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.. Vallan-
digham was by military commander, seiz
ed and tried, for no other reason than words
I I l. .rNfI
the course of the Administration, and in con-
demnation of the military orders of the Gene
raj" Now, if there be no mistake about this
if this assertion is the truth and the whole
truth; if there was no other reason for the ar
rest, then concede that the arrest was wrong.
But the arrest, as | understand, was made
for very different reason. Mr.. Vallandig-
ham avows his hostility to the war ON the part
of the Union and his arrest was made be-
cause he was laboring with some effect, to
prevent the raising OF troops; to encourage
assertions from the army; and to leave the
rebellion without an adequate military force
to suppress it. He was not arrested because
he was damaging the political prospects OF
the Administration, OF the personal interests
of the Commanding General; but because he
was damaging the army, upon the existence ;
and vigor of which the life Of the nation de i
ponds. He was warning upon the military,
and this gave the military constitutional jul 5
risdiction to lay hands upon him. If Mr.. {
was not damaging the militia
ry power of the country, then his arrest was
made on mistake of fact, which would be {
glad to correct on reasonably satisfactory ev- {
idencc i
| understand the meeting, whose resolu- t
lions | am considering, to be in favor of sup t
pressing the rebellion by military force-by Q
armies Long experience has shown that ar
mics cannot be maintained unless desertion
shall be punished by tho severe penalty Of !
death. The case requires and the law and d,
the Constitution sanction, this punishment
Must I shoot simple minded soldier boy who
deserts, while | must not touch a hair Of a C
willy agitator who induces him to desert p f
This is none the less mi urious when effected c
Oy getting father or brother, or friend, into C
1 public meeting, and there working upon his e
ceilings till he is persuaded to write the sol b
lier boy that he is fighting in bad cause, for t
wicked Administration Of a contemplate +
Government, too weak to arrest and punish |
lim if he shall desert. / think that in such 6
/ case, to silence the agitator and save the P
BOY is not only constitutional, but withal
great mercy. I
? If I be wrong on this question of constitu- s
tionaI power, my error lies in believing that c
certain proceedings are constitutional when, a
in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public O
safety requires them; which would not be h
constitutional when, in absence of rebellion or o
INVASION, the public safety did not require \
hem in other words that the Constitution is n
not, in its application, in all respects the same,
in cases of rebellion or invasion involving the L
public safety, as it is in times Of profound o
,eace and public security. The Constitution t
tself makes the distinction and | can no t
more be persuaded that the Government can \
,onstitutionally take no strong measures in Y