Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1863-07-03
DELAWARE, OHIO, JULY 8, 1868.

=
the Constitution, and as indispensable to th'
, public safety Nothing is better known tC
history than that courts of justice are utterly
! incompetent to such cases. Civil courts ara
organized chiefly for trial of individuals, or
at most, few individuals acting in concert
and this in quiet times, and on charges oi
crimes well defined in the law Even in times
of peace bands Of hc.se-thieEes aud robbers
frequently grow too numerous and powerful
for the ordinary courts OF Justice. But what
comparison, in plumbers, have such bands ever
borne to the insurgent sympathizers even in
many of the loyal States? Again, a jury too
frequently has at least one member more ready
to hang the panel than to hang traitor And
yet, again, he who dissusdes one man from
volunteering, or induces one soldier to desert,
weakens the Union cause as much as he who
kills a Union Soldier in battle. Yet this dis
suasion or inducement may be so conducted
as to be no defined crime of which any cfgsf
court would take cognizance.
Ours is case of rebeIlion-so called by
the resolution before me-in fact, clear, fla
grant, and gigantic case of rebellion; and the
| provision of the Constitution that "the privi-
lege Of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion
or invasiens, the public safety may''require it, "
is the provision which specially applies to our
present case. The provision plainly attests
the understanding of those who made the Con.
stitution, that ordinary courts are inadequate
to leases of rebellion" attest their purpose
that, In such cases men may be held in custo-
| dy whom the courts, acting on ordinary rules.
would discharge. Habeas corpus does not dis
charge men who are proved to be guilty of
defined crime; and its suspension is allowed by
| the Constitution on purpose that men may be
arrested and held who cannot be proved to be
guilty of defined crime, ''when, il cases of rebel
lion or invasion, the public safety may require
it, This is precisely our present case-a
| case of rebellion, wherein the public safety
does require the suspension. Indeed, arrests
in cases of rebellion, do not proceed altogether
! upon the same basis. The former is directed
at the small percentage of ordinary and con-
tinuous perpetration of crime, while the latter
is directed at sudden and extensive 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 latter is more
for the preventive and less for the vindictive
Than the former. In such cases the purpose
OF men are much more easily understood than
in cases of ordinary crime. The man who
stands by and says nothing when the peril of
his Government is discussed, cannot be misun-
dersteod. If not hindered, be is sure to help
tie enemy; much more, if he talks ambigousy
talks for his country with "bHts" and 'ifs''
and lands" Of how little value the constitu-
tiOnal provisions l have quoted will be render
ed if arrests shall never be made until defined
crimes shall have been committed, NAV S.
| illustrated by few notable examples. Gen
John c. Breckenridge, Gen. Robert E. Lee
Gea. Joseph E, Johnston, Gen. John B. Ma
gruder, Gen. VIM. B. Preston, Gen Simon
Buckner, and Commodore Franklin Buchan
an, now occupying the very highest places in
the rebel war service, were all in the power of
the Government since the rebellion began,
ana we're all 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 COM
mitted any crime defined in the law Every
one of them, if arrested would have been dis
charged on ha6eaS corpus were the writ allow
ed to operate. In view of these 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 indicate
their opinion that military arrests may be con-
stitutional in localities where rebellion actual
ly exists, but that such arrests are unconstitu-
tional 10 localities where rebellion or insur-
that such arrests shall not be made toutside
the lines Of necessary military occupation and
the scenes of insurrection." Inasmuch, how
ever, as the Constitution itself makes no such
distinction, I am unable to believe that there
is any sueh constitutional distinction. I con-
cede that the class of arrests complained of can
be constitutional only when, in cases of rebel
lion or invasion, the public safety may require
them; and 1 insist that in such cases they are
constitutional aChereUer the public safety does
require them; as well in places to which they
may prevent the rebellion extending as in
those where it may be already prevailing; as
well where it may restain the enticiDg men
out of the army as well as where they would
prevent mutiny in the army; equally constitu-
tioDal at all places where they will conduce
to the public safety, as against the dangers
of rebellion or invasion. Take the psrticular-
case mentioned by the meeting. 1t is asserted
in substance, that Mr.. Valandgham was, by
military commander, seized and tried, "for
no other reason than words addressed to a
public meeting, in criticism of the course of
the Administration, and in condemnation of
the military orders of the General" Now, If
there be no mistake about this; if this asser-
tion is the truth and the whole truth; if there
was no other reason for the arrest, then con-
cede that the arrest was wrong. But the ar.
rest, as l understand, was made for different
reason. Mr.. Valandigham svows his hostil-
ity to the war on the part of the Union; and
his arrest was made because he was laboring,
with some effect, to prevent the raising of
| troops; to encourage desertions from the army;
and to leave the rebellion without an adequate
military force to suppress it. He was not ar
rested because be was damaging the political
prospects of the administration, or the person
al interests of the commanding General, but
| because he was damaging the army upon the
existence and vigor of which the life of the
nation depends He was warning upon the
military, and this gave the military constitu-
tonal jurisdiction TO lay bands upon him. IfI
Mr.. Vallandigham was not damaging the mil
itary power of the country, then his areest
was made on mistake of fact, which l would
be glad to correct on reasonably satisfactory
evidence.
1 understand the meeting, whose resolutions
l am considering, to be in favor of suppressing
the rebellion by military iorce-by armies
Long experience has shown that armies cannot
be maintained unless desertion shall be pun
ished by the severe penalty of death. The