Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-09-28

to search for the authors, printers and publishers
Of the obnoxious paper, to apprehend and seize
them, together with their papers, and bring them
before him" Armed with this rowing commits
sion, these officers seemed to have been as indus
trious as modern Provost Marshals-like them.
"listening to idle tales, rumorsa and curious guess
es;" they arrested in three days not less than
forty-nine persons on suspicion. From some of
these, they ascertained that John Wilkes, a
member of Parliament. was the author Of the
obnoxious article; and the messengers were di-
rected TO arrest him. They did so, and took him
before Lord Halifax, after ransacking his drawers
and seizing his private papers. He was commit
ted to prison, and afterward released on habeas
corpus, by reason of his privilege as a member of
the House of Commons.
The question of the legality of the warrant now
came before the courts of England. in writs
brought against the messengers concerned in the
arrest, by those whom they had arrested.
In the first trial Lord Chief Justice Pratt de
cided that a general warrant was illegal, and
that the messengers were not unidentified BY
statute. Mr.. Wilkes himself sued Mr.. Wood,
SIS 900 damages against him.
Lord Chief Justice Pratt thus spoke of the
warrant:
1.-The defendant claimed a right. under prece-
dent, to force per sons houses, break open escre
torres, and seize their papers upon a general war
rant. If such a power is truly vested in a
Secretary of State; and he can delegate it to
another, it certainly may affect the person and
property of every man in this kingdom. and is
totally subversive of the liberty of the subject"
This. with other cases, afterward cam before
the Court of Kings Bench, and Lord Mansfield
pronounced a judgment against the legality of
such proceedings. which was concurred in bv the
other judges. Mr.. Wilkes afterward sued Lord
Halifax for false Imprisonment. and recovered
S20 900 damagesl
1t is this identical power of discretionary i'm
prisonment, thus pronounced against over and
over again in the struggles for constitutional LID
erty in England, that is claimed to day by the
Administration of Abraham Lincoln.
1t was but recently that Mr. Seward made the
boast to Lord Lyons. the British Minister, that
che could touch a bell at his right hand and or
der the arrest of a citizen of Ohio; that he could
touch a bell at his left and order the arrest of a
citizen Of New York. and that no power on earth,
save that of the President, could release them.
My Lord, can The Queen of England do as
much2"
Well might the British Minister have replied
to this disgraceful aud infamous boast. No. sir,
the Queen of England is a constitutional mon
arch, and assume to exercise no authority not
conferred upon her by the English Constitution.
Still less would she dare 10 arrogate to herself
the power of discretionary Imprisonment-a
| pOWeT I'LL fcSuLDcu " " ~ mOct DfDlliZdlc III
despotic of her predecessors. and incompatible
with the liberty OF an English subject. 1t was
for the assumption of powers akin to this that
Charles the First lost his head, and james the
Second his Crown. No, sir. the Queen of Eng
land could not do as much: for, as Lord Chat
ham has eloquently said, 1.-The poorest man in
his cottage can defy all the powers of the British
Crown. 1t may be frail, its roof may shake, the
wind NAV blow through il, the storm may enter
- kt .Lo L.. 80 EaularI ~,~@t 80 u
cannot, with all his power, cross the threshold OF
that ruined tenement"
| have now shown you, my fellow citizens, the
constitutional provisions under the hitherto sacred
guarantee Of which we have enjoyed our personal
freedom and the security of our homes i have
traced Il e history of those provisions through the
vicissitudes of the English monarchy for a period
of six hundred years: | have shown YOU how
pertinaciously arbitrary power has sought to
arrogate to itself this dangerous privilege of dis
cretionary Imprisonment, and how it has been
foiled, time and time again, by the bold and
courageous resistance of a liberty-loving people
1t was in the full light of these historical strug
giles that the trainers of our noble Constitution
acted when they placed the articles | have read
to you in our fundamental law. | should but
weary your patience were l to refer to the re
peated and reiterated assertion of this sacred
right of personal immunity from arbitrary arrest
anu IMPRISONMENT ~ III u OOuobteuNtOno
and bills of rights of the several States. 1t is
one of the great, if not the most prominent
characteristics of our American system of gov
eminent.
Let me not be told that these guarantees were
not designed to apply to a time of war or public
danger. but only in peace, when no occasion
would arise for their application 1t was amiC
the ihroes of domestic revolution that they haC
their birth; il was because arbitrary power haC
arro-fad opd i'm rts0npd FREQ m on vyifh0uf Warrant
that the protection OF a warrant and due lega
process was guaranteed; it was because men haC
been convicted by military commissions that
Jury Of twelve men was prescribed as the only
tribunal that could pronounce upon the liberty OF
life of a citizen, not in the land or naval forces
of the United States. or in the militia when il
actual service, in time of war or public danger
it was because mems houses had beeHbroken int
and the ~sanctity of of their homes violated II
time of domestic connections. that it became
necessary to provide that no such outrages should
be tolerated, unless under a warrant legally
sworn out. specifying distinctly the grounds. pur
poses and objects of the search. In times o
domestic quiet there is DO temptation to the com
mission of these outrages; it is only when tn,
demon of fraternal discord has been loosed in
community-when dark suspicion. false imputa
tons and vindictive hate usurp the place of en-
lightend justice in the breasts of men, that thos
VINO ma themselves mNeSteO VIII tulNOfltN vii
strive to use it oppressively. 1t is from the We
atmosphere of insurrection and discord that lhes'
sacred guarantees of person ard property derive
vital power that gives them efficacy.
Exemption from punishment for committed
crime. no man has any right to claim; but ex
emption from punishment. unless by due process
of law, the ,vilest criminal that can be a~rraignet
has a right to demand. 1t is a right sacred, be
cause il is designed to protect the Innocent
cannot be violated. under any circumstances
without danger to our liberties. Despotic powe
Is never at a less for plausible pretexts to iustif,
or excuse It's encroachments. Mr.. Vallandig
hams case to-day NAV be mine or yours to
morrow. Military necessity is plea capable o
illimitable extension. Its recognition is despot
ism. If we yield the guarantees of our writer
Constitution, we are the helpless victims of al
irresponsible power. | have the authority o
Mr. Clay for asserting that "if there be a des
%criptinn Of rights which more than any othe
should unite all parties. in all parts of the Union
it is unquestionably the liberty of the person
No matter what his vocation--whether he seek
subsistence among the dangers of the deep, o.
draws it from the bowels of the earth, or from
the humblest occupations of mechanic Ii e
whenever the sacred rights of an American citi
zen are assailed, all hearts ought to unite, ant
every arm should be braced TO vindicate hi
cause"
/ have not spoken of the causes of the rebel
lion, nor of the policy of its suppression by arms
/ am not one of those who believe the guilt o
this terrible calamity is all upon one side A
the desolation and suffering Is sent by Providence
alike upon the North and South. so do | believ'
that the North and South are both in a great. i
not an equal degree responsible for it. A disre
gard OF the great principles of justice between
man and man, citizen and citizen. il at the hot
tom of this whole controversy. Recrimination