The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1863-06-19

WuehtAu tht puuNC SAFETY Noes lt~
unire the suspension. Indeed, arrests
by pr 'oess Of courts, and arrests an cases
of rebellion, do not proceed altogether
upon the same basis. The former is d.
rectcd At the small percentage Of oFdi.
nary and continuous Preparation Of
crime, while the latter is directed al sud
den and extensive uprisings against the
government, which, at most, will succeed
or fail in no great length Of time. la
the latter case, arrests arc made, not 40
much for what has been done, as for
what probably would be done. The
latter is more for the preventive and less
for tho 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
misunderstood. If not hindered, be is
sure to help the enemy; much more, If
he talks ambiguously - talks for his
country with butts and 'ifs" aud
lands" or how little value the contt-
tutibnal provisions have quoted will be
rendeted. if arrests shal never be made
milted, may be illustrated by few no.
table examples: General John @. Breck-
inridge, General Robert e. Lee, General
Joseph f. Johnston, General John b.
Magruder, General William O. Preston,
General Simon b. Buckner, and Commo-
dore Franklin Buchanan, now occupying
tho very highest places in the rebel SER
vice, were all within the power Of tho
government since the rebellion began, and
were nearly as 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 committed any crime de-
fined in the law. Every one of them, il
arrested, would have been discharged on
haJeas corpus were the writ allowed 20
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 in
dictate that military arrests may be con-
stitutional in localities where rebt lion
actually exists, bat that such arrests are
unconstitutional in localities where re-
bellion or Instruction does not actually
exist. They insist that such arrests
shall not be made "outside Of tho hnes
of necessary military occupation, and
the scenes of instruction" Inasmuch,
however, IS the Constitution itself makes
no such distinction, am unable TO be-
lieve that there is any such constitu:
tionRl distinction. cOncedc that the
class of arrests complained Of can be
constitutional only when, ia cases Of re-
bellion or Invasion, the public safety may
require them; and insist that 10 such
cases they are constitutional iOhsrever tho
public safety does require them as well
in places 10 watch they may prevent the
rebellion extending as in those where IL
may BIO already prevailing; as well
where they may restrain mischievous
interference with the raising and supply
| Jog OF armies to suppress tho rebellion,
as where the rebellion may actually be I;
as we'll where they may restrain the en-
ticing men out OF the army, as where
they would prevent mutiny IN the army (;
equally constitutional at all places whore
they will oonduce 10 The public safety, as
| against the dangers Of rebellion or inva-
sion. Take the particular case mention
ed by the meeting. IL is asserted, In
substance, that Mr.. Vallandigham was,
| by a military commander, seized and
! tried "for no other reason than words
addressed 10 a public meeting, in crit
icism of the course Of the. administra-
| ton, and in condemnation of the military
orders of the general" Now, IL there
be no mistake about this; il this as
sertiOn is the truth and the whole truth ;
IL there was no other reason for ths
arrest then I concede that the arrest
was wrong. But the arrest, as under
stand, was made for . very different reR-
son. Mr.. Vallandigham avows bis hos-
tility TO the war on the part Of the Union;
and his arrest was made because he was
laboring, with some ofloot, to prtvent the
raising Of troops; 20 encourage deser-
tions from the army; add 60 leave che
rebellion without an adequate military
force TO suppress 81. lie was not ar
rested because he was damaging the
political prospects OF the administration
or the personal interests OF the COM
handing general, but because be ws'
damaging the army, upon the existence
and vigor Of which the life OF the natter
depends. lie Was warning upon thi
military, and this gave the military con.
stitu.ional jurisdiction 20 lay hand
upon him. If Mr. Vallandighsm wal
not damaging the military power Of tn
country, then his arrest WAS made Of
mistake OF fact, which would be glat
70 correct on reasonably aatisfactorl
evidence.
l understand the meeting, whose reso
luiions ! am considering, TO DO In fAyo
Of suppressing the rebellion by military
fOrce-by armies. Long experience hA
shown that armies cannot be maintained
unless desertion shall be punished b.
the severe penalty of death. The cas-
requires, and the law aud the constiiu
tion sanction, this punishment Must
shoot a simple. minded soldier boy Wit
deserts. while must not touch hair o
a willy agitator who induces him TO de-
r sertY This is none the lees iniuriou
when effected by getting father, o.
brother, or friend, into public meeting
, and there working upon his feelings al
he is persuaded to write the soldier boz
thAt be Is fighting 10 bad cause, flr
wicked administration Of a eOntemptibl
government, too weak 10 arrest aud pun
ish him IL he shall desert think tina
ia such a case, 70 silence the sgiiator AM
save the boy 10 net only constitutions
, but withal a great mercy,
, If / be wrong on this question Of con
I stltudonal power, my error lies Ia be
! lieying that certain proceedings are con
4 stitutio al whom, ia cases Of rebellion {
/ invasion, tho public safety requires theu
: which would not bs constitutional whei