The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1863-07-03

The Press, in support of the system of
the arrest and punishment of civilians by
military authority and tribunals, which has
been initiated and sustained by the Presi-
dent, cites the case of the arrest of AARON
BURR by General WILKINSON, and the letter
of President JEFFERSON in justification of
such arrest. The citation is a most un-
fortunate one for the purpose intended.
For, the system which it is designed to
sustain, covers not merely the arrest of
the suspected citizen by military power,
but his trial, conviction, and punishment,
by the same power; in contempt not only
OF the constitutional rights of the citizen,
but of the laws specifically enacted for
such cases, prescribing different rule of
trial, conviction and punishment, and
limiting the exercise of such authority to
the civil tribunals.
The Only similarity between the pro-
ceedings in BURRs case and VALLAND1G-
HAMS, is in the manner of arrest BURR
was arrested as VALLANDIGHAM was, by
military order. BURR, however, was de-
livered over by the military to the civil
authorities, was put on bail by such civil
authorities to await the action of grand
jury on his case, and, after his regular and
formal Indictment, was tried and acquit-
ted by jury of his peers, according to
the due forms Of law. VALLANDIaHAM
was not merely arrested by military order,
but was tried, convicted, sentenced, and
the sentence executed, with some modif-
cation, by military authority alone. The
letter of President JEFFERSON, therefore,
referring to the single matter of BURRs
military arrest, is not pertinent as prece-
dent or authority for the military arrest,
trial and conviction of VALLAND1GHAM.
We do not question the propriety of the
arrest, in either case, nor the manner of
it. General WILKINSON, acting upon the
belief that high crime had been COM
mitted, had the right, according to the
common law, to arrest BURR as he did.
General BURNSIDE had like right to ar
rest VALLANDIaHAM. The same right exists
to-day, and has always existed, in the per-
son of every citizen, military and civil, to
arrest any man known or believed to have
committed crime, and to deliver him into
the custody of the officers of the law for
examination; being responsible, of course,
for the upjusti6able or malicious exercise
of such right. This is a common law
right, which has never been superseded
or denied by any Federal or State consti-
tuition, law, or court. There is, then, no
controversy to be had in respect to the
manner of VALLANDIGHAM's arrest, but
only in respect to the proceedings which
followed. And these, as they involve the
whole question of personal liberty and ex-
ecutive power; of constitutional govern
ment and absolute despotism; had better
be treated of in the light of the laws as
they exist.
During the first days of the rebellion,
political arrests were made and incarcera-
tons suffered in military prisons; and
these arrests and lmprisonments were SUBJ
mitted to by the country with compare
lively little objection. There was no law
defining offences of reasonable nature,
except that which confined itself to the
crime of treason, as laid down in the con-
sttution. But the offences Of treason
able nature, merely, the perpetration of
which might endanger the very existence
of the nation, had not been provided
against by law and the President was
justified in his arbitrary proceedings, and
permitted, under the extraordinary cir
cumstances of the case, and in the recess
of Congress, to be law unto himself
The plea of necessity which the President
put forth in his justification was acquiesced
in by the loyal people, and Congress gave
its approval by an act of indemnify
1t should not be forgotten, however,
that this indemnifying act was passed
with the greatest reluctance, and only at
the last Congressional session. The ablest
and wisest of the Presidents partizans in
the two Houses, doubted both the proprie-
ty and power of Congress to give such
indemnity. It was, however, done !;
though less from the expectation that it
would have legal effect, than from the
desire to testify the faith of Congress in
the patriotic intentions of the President.
But, while thus enacting the forms of in
Identification, Congress took pains to
provide against the further necessity Or
excuse for the arbitrary and irregular use
of power, by the passage of an act which
defined offences of a reasonable nature,
declaring the penalties, and prescribing
the tribunals before which they should be
tried. This act was approved July Is,
1862, and is entitled can act to suppress
insurrection, to punish treason and rebel