Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-06-11
THE LIMITATIONS OF CRITICISM.


Much debate has recently arisen with regard
to the right of free discussion aud the nature and
degree of the limitations if any of that right during
time of war. 1t seems to be the opinion of mill
tary legists like Gen. Burnside and Gen. Hascall
that all civil rights, including the right of free
discussion, are doomed to suffer partial eclipse in
the Loyal States because of the dark shadow which
rests the States in rebellion and which are the
theatre of contending armies
If harsh comments on the civil authorities are
not admissible in the camp they are equally mad
mssible, says General Burnside, on the tribune,
where their PRONUNCIATION may reach the ears Of
our soldiers and induce apathy or disafection,
if not actual mutuy. And, starting from this
premise, he Immediately jumps to the conclusion
that if it be lawful for military commander to
arrest and try before court-martial the soldier
who holds language that tends to produce insubor-
dinaton, it is equally lawful to arrest and try be-
fore the same tribunal the civilian who commits an
offence which is similar in its nature and similar
in its effect.
Gen. Burnside seems unable to conceive that,
alike under the constitutional and statute law of
the land, there is distinction between the civil
and the military code, or between civil courts and
courts-martial. Or, if he has Renaissance of
some such distinction as belonging to time Of
peace, he seems to imagine that all such discrimi-
nations are merged by the fact of war.
If any object to this simpli6cation Of laws it is
naturally held by Gen Burnside that all such per-
sons exceedingly unreasonable, if not disloya
at heart" They should willingly give up their
rights for season, he urges, that they may after
wards enjoy them forever
We have no doubt that Gen. Burnside is entire
ly sincere in this view Of his duty and prerogaves
but his sincerity does not atone for the grievous
error into which he has fallen. He should learn
that those who protest against his proceedings
equally sincere with himself, and that all their
protests proceed from the solemn conviction that
he has COMPOUNDED acts which reason, right, and
law combine to keep eternally separate, wherever
the processes Of the civil courts are undisturbed
by the actual shock Of arms
Those who object to his proceedings on the ground
of their legality do not desire to procure any i'm
munity for treason any enity for traitors. They
demand only that Gen Burnside, in vindicating the
laws violated by others, shall not break them him
SELF When the last Congress passed enactments
designed to cover precisely such cases those of
Mr.. Vallandigham or those of the Chicago Times
they insist that these cases shall be tried by the
law made and provided for them, and not by the
will Of the commander, for it was expressly in
order to exclude all necessity for the arbitrary
sorts of the latter that Congress passed the statutes
of July II, 1852, and March 3, 1868.
Loyal men who themselves respect the laws have
right to complain that violators Of these statutes
are not tried under them. Neither the President
nor Gen. Burnside has any dispensing power"
which enables them to unbind the sanctions of
these laws, whether as applicable to them or to
others. Their duty is to enforce the laws, not to
suspend or supersede them. That it should be
necessary for to re-state such familiar axioms
only shows the strange dislocation of ideas pro-
duced by the wrench and strain of martial violence
The true doctrine propounded on this subject
by Mr.. Senator Trumbull, when, few days ago,
lie was called to consider the question raised by
General Burnside's meditated suppression of the
Chicago Times. He then said
"The Constitution protects all in tune of well
as pence. The Constitution expressly gives the power to
suppress insurrecton and put down rebellion. There is
no question but that General has authority, but is
question how far that authority extends There is
in Illinois Have not the people and the papers in this
city right TO discuss aud ctcse the Of this
war; 1t is right which you clam-every of you.
There not Of you but has discussed and criticised
the acts of the Administration. There is not who
has blamed this Government for certain acts and IL
you deny newspapers the right to express their opinions
then you subjects Of military authority There is civil
law ia operation here newspaper has been suppressed
your city, and it is claimed thai that paper has attempt
ed to discourage sod opposed the acts of the Adj
minsraton and encouraged resistance the draft Now
il that paper guilty Of such acts its editors could be
rested and thrown into prison. The law should be
forced"
He then proceeded to read for the information Of
those whom he was addressing the statute Of the
last Congress fixing the manner Of proceeding and
the penalty in the case Of ell who should oppose
the Government or sympathize with the enemy in
time of war. 1t is the same statute and section as
were cited by the Inteligencer in giving the law
of the case" as regards Mr.. Vallandgham.
And in view of the remedy thus made and pro-
vided, Mr.. Trumbull asked that instead Of news
papers being suppressed by military edict their
propretors and editors should be tried under the
laws, and condemned by the laws, if they give aid
and comfort to the enemy. This i, the right