The Burlington weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington [Iowa]) 1860-1876, 1863-05-23

not local or national, but is wherever the
rebels can be found and wherever the in
exists. For example, there are
men from Ohio now rebel officers, fighting
in rebel armies. Is any man foolish en-
ough to say that the commanding General
here cannot arrest them, or confiscate their
property; because they are citizens of
loyal State? or that they cannot be arrested
in Ohio? or that a writ OF habeas corpus
would lie for their dirty carcasses? Yet,
understand that one of the main argu-
ments made in the Vallandigham case was,
That Ohio was loyal State, and therefore
no man can be arrested here by military
law!
But let us proceed. The Constitution
vests the whole power of conducting the
wal, and the manner of it, in the hands of
tne PRESIDENT: and in Congress the supply
OF money and the legal regulations for pro-
eeedings in regard to the raising of troops
ana the raising of taxes. This power is
iull, complete, and unlimited. The Presi-
gent and Congress have acted upon it. This
Is one OF the great ends of government, to
protect the integrity of the Government
anu nation against enemies, whether for
eign or domestic. Does any one suppose
the constitution contradicts itself? That
it has provided a tremendous array of
means 10 raise armies and navies, and vet
ielt Inc whole OF 1t at the mercy of dema-
gogues or writ of habeas corpus? It VOID
oe 70 suppose the Constitution a nullity,
and its trainers blockheads. The fact is
simply that the Constitution has provided
Una. .iie hatlonai power OF the war shall go
oii I.eeteeITIPSeA ~ any ctUat process. That
t as Iue PrLlciPle. NOW let us go step fur
ther. The Constitution has provided that
Congress may do anything which is ",,ec-
essOTy and proper to carry on war: and
when We consider that the object of war is
Iiie obstruction OF tiie enemy, ana the wide
scope anu ihaShleuoe OF tne means hecessa-
Iy 10 carry IL on, we mgnt stop mere; for
1ne!e aie no powers Vi eta.e, 10 rishts OF
an lliulVIo ,t Whicn can constltutionaly
lLterfupt the eHerclse OF this compete grant
OF power. But let us look at some OF the
detalls ana examples. Unoer the war
grant, congress Is speclacally empowered
70 make rnees Jor me government ana Ieg",,
tot'on o. the tond d"d R6o0t FORCES" anu
mare ,t'tes co"cef"t9c captures on eC'f'o "''''
Uoter;
is tnere any limitation 10 tne klnu OF eH,
tent OF tne reg ulatlohS ana rules 'iley sLaii
make? is there any locality III them? NOT
AT All. nave not the statutes by me 10
know precisely what rules they nave mace,
put certainty the constitution mas not nm
tied them Now let us see what the Su-
preme Court mas TO say on TINS supject; not
the present cases now IN hand, put on the
S0h0,o Oh ~ iii'ipie' nc t'i0E'1or 80. o.
understand, is that there is dlfference
between the military jurisdiction on sub
ects in Ohio or in Tennessee.
In the case OF Brown VS.. United States
| (Cranch's Reports) the Courts say the
power of making rules concerning cap
lures on land and water, which Is super
added in the Constitution to that OF declar-
ing war IS not confined to captures '0htch are
ertr0-territo1tdt, Dot extends TO Tute8 re-
| SDecti1tg enemies DT'OpeTtV found lDttRtR TIE
Territory" Now this is not case OF mil
itary arrest in Ohio; but the principle COW
ers the latter. AT that time 1t was ques-
| toned whether enemies property could DC
contiscated i'll OU, Territory. The Court
says it can. Now, is there the least posi-
BILE doubt, that if the osrner of that proper.
ty were there, he could be arrested! lie,
US now illustrate this practically. Albert
Jenkins, the guerrilla chlei OF western