Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-09-24

IL wss confirmed IN the evenly nth year Of
The reign of EINsrd I. in the year 1897. by
-i-tate which Mr. II .l!am "a historian from
whom | will quote more copioOslv hereafter
says added another pillar TO the English Con-
-tituton. not less important than the great char
Ter itseif"
During the reigns Of Edward RI and III, des-
potic power upon various occasions began TO show
it-eif nv asserting the right of arbitrary arrests
for the al egei crime of treason. he crime Of
hi. h treason seems tn have been Of a very vague
AMI indefinite nature. determined only by the
construction of the courts. which sought chiefly
20 crafty the malice vengeance of the King
II WAS something like General Burnsiie's
acknowledgements. !" or ''implied''-nOt the
treason" of the Constitution OF the United
States, which is defined in these words:
Arr 3, Section g. Treason sgainst the
United States shall consist only in levying war
against them. or in adhering TO their enemies
giving them aid and comfort. No person shall
be convicted Of treason unless on the testimony
Of two Witnesses to the same overt act, or on
confession in open court
The Parliament Of Edward III, declaring that
..the Kings Judges in different counties adiudge
men indicted before them be traitors for divers
matters not known bv the Commons 10 be trea
sonable." making speeches. perhaps,) demanded
the enactment OF law which should define " what
should be held for treason" and the consequence
was the passage of the celebrated Statute of
Treasons. in the twenty fifth year Of the reign of
Edward III "A d. 1850. When King Henry VII
came to the throne in the year l4c5. more than
a century afterward and seven wears before the
discovery Of this continent in 1892 among the
essential checks upon the royal authority men-
toned nv Mr.. Hsllrm. from whose "Constitu-
tions History of England" will now read. were
these:
81 No man could be committed TO prison but
by legal warrant specifying his offense; and. by
a usage nearly tantsmount TO constitutional
right, he must he speedily brought to trial by
means of regular sessions OF Jail delivery.
4tI,. The f-ct of guilt. or innocence. on n
criminal charge. was determined in public
court. and in the county where the offense vas
alleged to have occurred. by jury of twelve men
from whose unanimous verdict appeal could
be made
5th The officers and servants of the Crown.
violating the personal liberty, or other rights of
the subject. might he sued in an action for DANA
ges tn he assessed by jury, or in some cases
were liable to criminal process; nor could they
plead any warrant or command in their justi6ca
ton. not even the direct order OF The King.
Here. then, YOU have the testimony of history
that. nesrly four hundred years ago a King of
England dared not DO what Ambrose (. Burn
side has done. in the exercise Of power dele
gated tn him bv the sworn defender of the Con
sttution of the United States
In these limitations upon the ROYAL authority,
YOU can rot fail TO observe the very essence of
the provisions of our own Constitution; guarding
pcr@onal liberty with the protection of n legal
warrant, specifying the offense of the accused.
with fair trial in public court in the county
where the ofense ives committed and by jury of
twelve men
Look now to the language Of President Lin
nlu'a Ian oafia tn no nf
Order No 80. and the authority under which a
subordinate officer executed il upon G. l. Val
landig ham. then turn to the articles of the Con-
stitution have read and behold the irrefutable
and discraceiu evidences of an arbitrary and
desnotic pow er that forbidden even to King
of England four hundred years agol
Blu, come with me down TO later period of
time in English history
The reign of Queen Elizabeth in the latter part
Of the sixteenth century was distinguished for
the encroachments of royalty upon the liberty OF
the subject State trials were conducted with
most notorious Injustice Mr.. Hsllam SAYS THAT
the glarng trausgressions of natural well 50
positive law rendered the courts of Justice in
cases OF treason little better thar the c,verns of
murderers" He further saws that lit can not
be too frequently repeated that no power of arbi
tr,ry detention has ever been known to the
English Constitution since the Charter obtained
always been matter of right-but rs may natu-
rally be ina gned. no right of the subject in his
relation To the crown, was preserved with q cater
| d fficultv. Not only the Privy Council in gen
eral arrogaed to itself power OF discretionary
| Imprisonment into which no inferior court was
To inquire. but commitments by single coun.
sellor appear TO have been frequent"
| So grievous did this evil become. that even
the Judges who held their offices at the pleasure
Ior h. ca1 aud
complaint to Sir. Charles II tten. the Chancellor.
and Lord Burleigh, both Ministers of the Queen
| Here Is part OF the language of that remarkable
document:
I'VE. Her M,jesty's Justices of both Benches
and Barons Of the ExcheQuer. desire your Lord
| ships that by vonr good mears such order may
be taken that Her Highness subjects may not be
committed detained IN prison by command
ment of anv nobleman or counsellor, against the
! laws of the realm"
| Is il not humiatng that we must 60 back to
the despotic reign of Elizabeth to find ex imples
OF the lawless 0utrages of which we complain TO
| day: But even the judicii subserviency OF that
nOtoriously corrupt age did not descend to the
level reached bv "A Judge of the Circuit Court
of the United States who. so far from remon
strating against the commitment and detention
of free citizen. mot by commandment of any
nobeman or counsellor. but by the arbitrary or
der of a commanding General. } actually refused
to release him upon the great writ of right, and
remanded him to the custody of his aorsl
But further: Ii is TO the reign of Elizabeth that
/ Mr. Lincoln il indebted for the idea ot the proc
lamaiion he issued on the Oath day of September
! 1862 which have read. whereby he ''arrognt ted
10 himself aud delegated to his sub0rllnates "a
power of discretionary imprisonment into which
no inferior court to inquire +"
In speaking of this infamous proclamation. the
| historian saws:
mo other measures OF Elz beth's reign car
be compared IN poin, Of violence and illegalii '
10 commission issued in July. 1895. directed to
! Sir Thomas Wlliord wher,b y upon 10 other
allegation than that there had teen OF late sundrN
great unlawful assemblaees (pnhlic meetings
| perhaps like that held 1T Mount Vermont of
! number of base people of riOtouS sort. &c i
Was found necessary 10 have some such notabl,
rebellious persons be speedily suppressed b,
execution and death. according to the Justice o.
martial law; and he is therefore appointed Proves
! Marshal" a name quite familiar to Us in these
latter times To carry out the atrocious purpose
Of this arbitrary and illegal order.
| The encroachments OF the royal perogativ'
during the reign OF Elizabeth, aud her successor
James the First. and the arbitrary conduct u
! Oh trles the FIRST. uppn his accession to the
throne, led to the celebrated
PETITION OF KIeHr,
Which was granted in the third year of his reign
A D 1927 Charles having broken up Psrlis
| ment, and dissolved it, was compelled TO resor
10 forced loans tor means ~ carry on the gov ern
ment The arbitrary ex fction of money by tn
! King. without the authority of Parliament. WI