Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1863-06-20


in numbers, have such bands ever borne to
the insurgent sympathizsrs even in many
of the loyal States2 Again, jury too /
has at least one member mored
ready to hang the panel than to hang the
traitor. And yet, again, he who dissuades |
one man from volunteering, or induces one
sOldierto desert, Weakens the Uuion cause /
as much as he who kills a Union soldier in |
battle. Yet this discussion reimbursement |
may be so conducted as to be no defined |
crime of which any civil court may take
cognizance.
Ours il case OF rebeliiOn-so called by
the resolutions before me-in fact, clear,
fragrant and gigantic case ofrebelIion, aud
the provision otthe Constitution that 1.-THE
writ Of h0beGS corpus shall not be suspend.
ed, unless when, in cases of rebellion or
invasion, the public safety may require it.
is the provision that specially applies to
out case. This provision plainly attests
the understanding of those who made the
Constitution, that ordinary courts of jus
tice are inadequate to leases of rebellion
attests their purpose, that, in such cases,
men may be held in custody, whom the
courts, acting on ordinary rules would dis
charge. Ha6eds corpus does not discharge
men who are proved TO be guilty of defined
crime, aud its suspension is allowed by the
Constitution on purpose that men may be,
arrested and held who cannot be proved
guilty ofde6ned crime, "when, in cases of
rebellion or invasion, she pnbIicsafety may
require it," This is precisely our,preseut
case-a case of rebellion. wherein the
public safety does require the suspension.
Indeed, arrests by process of courts, and
arrests in cases of rebellion do no not pro-
coed altogether upon the same basis. The
former is directed at the small per centage
of ordinary aud continuous preparation
of crime, while the latter is directed at
sudden and extensive uprisiugs against the
GoFernment, which, at most, will succeed
or fall i'll no great length of time. In the
latter case, arrests are made, not so much
for what has been done, as for what prob
abll' would be dOne. The latter is more
for 1he preventive and less for the vindic-
tive than the former. In such cases the
purposes of men are much more easily
understood than in cases ofordinary crime.
The man who stands by and says nothing
when the peril of his Government is dis
cussed, cannot be misunderstood. II not
hindered, he is sure to help the enemy;
much more, if he talks mbiguously-tulks
for his country with "buts" and ''ifs" and
lands" OF how little value the constitu-
lionnl provisions l have quoted will be
until defined crimes shall have been com.
mitted, may be illustrated by a few notable
examples Gen. .Iohu @. Breckenridge,
Gen. Robert E. Lee, Gen. Joseph f. John-t
ston, Gen. John B. Magruder, Gen. William
3. Preston, Gen. Simon B. B1ckner, and
Commodore Franklin Buchanan, now oc-
cupying the very highest places in the
rebel war service, were all within the
power of the Government since the rebel
lion began, and were nearly as we'll known
to be traitors then as now. Unquestion.
ably if we had seized and held them, Il he
iusurgent cause would be much weaker.
But no one of them had then committed
any crime defined in the law. Every one
of them, if arrested, would have been dis
charged on hd6eGS corpus were the writ al
lowed to operate. Ia view of these and
similar cases, think the time mol, unlikely
TO come when shall be blamed for having
made too few arrests rather than too many.
By the third resolution the meeting in
dictate their opinion that military arrests
may be constitutional in Localities where
| rebellion actually exists, but that such ar
| rests are unconstitutional in localities
where rebellion or insurrection does not
exist. They insist that such arrests shall
not be made "Uutside of the lines of me-
cessary military occupation and the scenes
of instruction" Innsmuch, however, as
| the Constitution itself makes no such dis
tinctlon, am unable to believe that there
| is any such constitutional distinction. l
concede that the class OF arrests complain.
ed of can be constitutional only when, in
cases of rebellion or Invasion, the public
safety may require them, and insist that
in such cases they are constitutional
wherever the public safety does require
them, as we'll in places to which they NAV
prevent the rebellion extending as in those
where it may be already prevailing; as we'll
where they may restrain mischievous in
reference with the raising aud supplying
Of armies to suppress the rebellion as
where the rebellion may actually be; as
where they may restrain the enticing men
out of the army as where they would pre-.
vent mutiny in the army; equally consti .
tutional at all places where they will con-
duce to the public safety, as against the
dangers of rebellion or invasion. Take
the particular case mentioned by the meet
ling. 1t is asserted, in substance, that Mr.
Nallandigham WAS, by military commau-
der, seized and tried, "for no other reason
than words addressed to public meeting in
\ crit6Cism of the course Of the AdministraL
ton, and in condemnation of the military
orders of the General" Now, if there be no
mistake about this; if this assertion is
the truth and the whole truth; it there was
no other reason for the arrest, then con-
cede that the arrest was wrong. But the
arrest, as | understand, was made for a
very different reason. Mr.. ValIandigham
avows his hostility to the war on the part
of the Union; sad his arrest was made be-
cause he was labOring, with some effect, 10
prevent the raising of troops; to encourage
assertions from the army; and to leave the
rebellion without an adequate military
force to suppressit. He was not arrested
because he was damaging the political
prospects of the Administration, or the
personal interests of 1.-THE Commanding Gem
eral, but because he was damaging the
army, upon the existence and viRor of
which the life of the nation depends. He
was warning upon the military, and this