Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1863-08-01

|
for what has been done, as for what probably
would be done. The latter is more for the
preventative and less for the vindictive than
the former. In such cases the purposes 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 misunder-
stood. 1fnot hindered, he is sure to help the
enemy; much more, if he talks ambiguously
talks for his country with "buts," and Ifs
and ands." OF how little value the consti.
tutional provisions l have quoted will be rem
dered, if arrests shall never he made until de.
fined crimes shall have been committed, may
be illustrated by few notable examples.
Gen. John C. Breckinridge Gen. Robert f.
Lee, Gen. Joseph f. Johnston, Gen. John B.
Magruder, Gen. VIM. B. Preston, Gen. Simon
| b. Buckner, aud Commodore Franklin Buch.
anan, now occupying the very highest places
| in the rebel war service, were all within the
power of the Government since the rebellion
began, and were nearly as well known to bs
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 committed any crime defined in the
law. Every one of them, if arrested. would
have been discharged on habeos torpus were
the writ allowed to operate. In view of these
and similar cases, think the time not unlikely
to come when / shall be blamed for having
made too few arrests rather than too many.
BY the third resolution the meeting indicate
their opinion that military arrests may be con-
stitutional in localities where rebellion actually
exists, but that such arrests are unconstitu.
tional in localities where rebellion or insurrec.
ton does not actually exist. They insist that
such arrests shall not be made "ou,side of the
lines Of necessary military occupation, and
the scenes of insurrection." Inasinuch, how
ever. as the Constitution itself makes no such
distinction, l am unable to believeth that there
is any such constitutional distinction. con-
cede that the class of arrests complained of
can be constitutional only when, in cases of re-
belion or invasion, the public safety may re-
quire them; and insist that in such cases
they are constitutional scheyerer the public
safety does require them; as we'll in places
to which which they may prevent the rebel
lion extending as in those where it may be al
ready prevailing; as well where they may re.
strain msclievous interference with the rails.
ing and supplying Of armies to suppress the
rebellion, as where the rebellion may actually
be; as well where they may restrain the en-
stsain the cnticing men out of the army, MS
where they would prevent mutiny in the
army; equally constitutional at all places
where they will conduce to the public safety,
as against the dangers Of rebellion or invasion.
Take the particular case mentioned by the
meeting. 1t is asserted. in substance that
Mr.. Vallandigham was, by military COM
| ,:.l g..
son than words addressed tua public meeting
in criticism of the course Of the Administra-
tion, and in condemnation of the military or.
ders Of the general" Cow, if there be no
mistake about this if this assertion is the
truth and the whole truth If there was no
other reason for the arrest, then concede
that the arrest was wrong. But the arrest, rs
l understand, was made for very different
reason. Mr.. Vallandigham avows his hostil-
ity to the war on 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 he was damaging the political
prospects of tue 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. Ho was warning upon the
military, and this gave the military constitu.
tional Jurisdiction to lay hands upon him. II
Mr. Vallandigham was not damaging the mil
itary power of tho country, then his arrest was
made on mistake of fact, which l would be
glad to correct on reasonably satisfactory evi.
dence.
understand the meeting. whose resolutions
ing the rebellion by military force-by armies
Long experience has shown that armies can
not be maintained unless desertion shall be
punished by the severe penalty Of death. The
case requires, and the law and the Constitu.
tion sanction this punishment. Mxst shoot
a simple-minded soldier boy ,yko deserts. pAile
Immst not touch ahair efa wiiy ag;tator sDAo
induces him to desertl This is none the less
injurious when effected by getting father or
brother, or friend, into public meeting. and
there working upon his feelings till he is per.
suaded to write the soldier boy that he is fight.
| ing in bad cause, for wicked Administra-
tion ola contemplate Government, too weak
to arrest and punish him if he shall desert.
think that in such case. to silence the agita-
tor and save the boy is not only constitutional.
but withal great mercy.
If l be wrong on this question of constitu-
tional power. my error lies in believing that
certain proceedings are constitutional when, in
cases Of rebellion or invasion the public safety
requires them, which would not be constitu.
tional when. in absence of rebellion or inva-
sion. the public safety does not require them:
in other words that the Constitution ia not in
it's application. in all respects the same. in