M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1863-08-06

rection, You infer, that all other pro-
visions of the Constitution having in
view the protection of the lite, liberty
and property Of the citizen, may be 10 .
like manner suspended. The proyis-
ion relating to the writ of habsas or.
pus, being contained in tho first part
OF the Constitution, the purpose Of
which is to define the power delegated
to Congress, has p connection in
language with the declaration Of rights
as guarantees OF personal liberty con.
tanned in the additional and amenda.
tory articles, and inaSmuch as the
provision relating to habeGs corpus
expressly provides for it's suspension
and the other provisions alluded to do
not provide for any such thing, the
legal conclusion Is, that the .snapap.
sion OF the latter is unauthorized.--
The provision for the writ of habeas
co'pu0,is merely intended to furnish
summary remedy, and hot the means
whereby personal security is conssr.
we'd, in the final resort; while the
other provisions are guarantees OF
personal rights the suspension of
which puts an end to all pretense Of
free government. 1t is true Mr.. Val.
landigham applied for writ Of Aabsas
corpus as u summary remedy against
oppression. But the denial Of this
did not take away hiS righttoa a speedy
public trial by an impartial Jury, or
deprive him Of his other rights as an
American citizen. Your assumption
OF the right to suspend all the constitu.
tionaI guarantees Of personal liberty,
and even Of the freedom of speech and
of the press, because the summary
remedy of habeas corpus may be sus.
pended, is at once startling and
alarming to al! persons desirous of
preserving FREQ government in this
country. -.".. ... .rf
The inquiry of the undersigned
whether 'you hold that the rights of
every man throughout this vast couu.
try,in time Of invasion or insurreetion.
are subject to be annu!led whepeyer
you may say that you consider the
public safety requires itp Yves plain
question, undisguised by circumlocu-
ton, aud intended simply to elicit in.
formation. Your affirmative answer
10 this question throws q shade upon
the fondest antieipations of the fram.
ers ofthe Constitution, who Aattered
themselves that they had provided
Safeguards against the dangers which
have ever beset and overt6rown free
government in other ages and couu.
tries. Your answer is not to be dis.
guised by the phraseology that the
Question "is simply a question WHO
shall shall decide, OR an affil nation
that NOBODY shall decide what the
public safety does require in cases Of
rebellion or inVasion.N Our Govern.
ment was designed to be a Govern
ment of law, settled and defined, and
not OF the arbitrary will of a single
man. AS a safeguard, the powers
were delegated to the Legislative, ex.
eeutiye and judicial branches of the
Government, and each made co-ordi-
nate with the other, and supreme
within its sphere /; and thus q mutual
check upon each other, in case OF
abuse OF power. II has been the boast
Of the American people that they had
a acritten Constitution, not only ,ex.
pressly defining, but also limiting the
powers of the Government, and pro.
viding effectual safeguards for personal
liberty, security and property. And
to make the matter more positive and
expiicit, it was provided BY the amen.
datory articles, nine and ten, that
"tbe enumeration Of the Constitution
Vt certain rights, shall not be con.
strued to deny or disparage others
retained by the people, and that "the
powers delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited By
it 10 the States, are reserved to the
States respectively or the people,"
With this care and precaution on the
part OF our fathers, who framed our
institutions, it was not to be expected,
that at SO early day as this, a claim
Of the President to arbitrary power,
limited only by his conception of the
requirements Of public safety, would
have been asserted. In derogation of
the constitutional provisions making
the President strictly an executive
officer, andavesting all the delegated
Legislative power in Congress, your
position, as we understand it, would
make your will the rule OF action and
J yonr declarations of therequirements
/, ofthe public safety the law Of the land.
4 Our inquiry was not therefore, ''sim.
-Iply a question WHO shalt decide, or
; khe affirmation that NOBODY shall de-.
cice, whatthe public safety requires. !"
Our Government is a Government of
9 law and IL ia the law making mower