Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-06-18

innocent persons might occur, are always hke'y 10
occur in such cases aud then clamor could be raised
in regard to this which might be- at least oil some service
TO the insurgent 1t needed very keen percep
ton TO discover this part of the enemys programme 30
soon by open hostes their machinery was fairly put
10 motion. Yet thoroughly mbued with reverence ior
the guaranteed rights of individuals was slow TO ADOPT
the strong which by degrees have been
to regard being within the exceptions OF the Consu
ton, and indispensable to the public safety Nothing
better known to history than that courts of justice are
utterly incompetent to such cases Cvii courts arc "
gsnzed chiefly for trials of individuals, or at most lew
indiyduals acting in concert and this in quiet times and
on charges of crimes we'll defined in the law Even 10
times of peace bands of thieves and robbers ire
ouenty grow too numerous and powerful for the ordinary
courts of Justice But what comparison in numbers have
such bands borne to the nsurgent sympathzes even
in many of the loyal Staes7 Again jury too frequently
has at least one member ready to hang the panel
than to hang the traitor And yet again. he who dssuades
one man from Volunteering induces soldier to de-
sert weakens the Union much he who kills
Union soldier battle. Yet this discussion or induce
ment may be 80 conducted to be defined crime Of
which any civil court would take cognizance
Ours is case of rebeion-so called by the resolutions
before me-n fact clear fragrant, and gigantic case OF
rebellion and the provision of the Constitution that the
privilege of the writ Of habeas corpus shall not be sus
pended unless when in of rebellion or INVASION the
public safety may require it" is the provision which spe
ciay applies to present case This provision plainly
atess the understanding of these who made the Constu
ton that ordinary courts of justice inadequate to
cases of rebeon"-attests their purpose that in such
cases. men may be- held custody whom the courts acting
on ordinary rules would discharge Habeas corpus does
not discharge men who proved to be guilty of defined
crime and its suspension allowed by the Constitution
on that men may be arrested and held who cannot
be proved to be guilty of defined crime, when In cases
of rebellion INVASION the public safety may require It,
This precisely present Casa case OF rebellion,
wherein the public safety does require the suspension
Indeed arrests by of courts and arrests IN cases
of rebellion do not proceed altogether upon the same basis
The former is directed at the small per centage of ordinary
and continuous perpetraton of crime while the latter IL
directed sudden and extensive uprisngs against the
which, at most, will succeed or fail IN no
great length of time In the latter arrests are made
much for what has been DONE as for what probably
would be DONE The latter for the preventive and
less for the vndcve than the former In such cases the
purposes of men are much easily understood than in
of ordinary crime The who stands by and says
nothing when the peril of bis Government is discussed
cannot be misunderstood If not hindered he is to
help the enemy; much he if talks ambiguously-
talks for his country with butts" aud ifs and "ands.
OF how little value the constitutional provisions have
quoted will be rendered if arrests shall never be made
until defined crimes shall have been committed, may be
by few notable examples. General John u
Gen Robert E. Lee, Gen Joseph f. John
ston Gen. John B. Magruder, Gen. William b. Preston
Gen Simon b. Buckuer, and Commodore Franklin Buch-
anan occupying the very highest places 10 the rebel
war service all within the power OF the Government
since the rebellion began and nearly as well known 10
be traitors then Unquestonaby we had seized
aud held them the nsurgent would be much
But no one Of them had then committed any CRIME denned
in the law Every Of them If arrested would nave
been discharged habeas corpus we're the VIII allowed
to operate In view of these and similar cases. think
the time not unlikely to when shall be blamed Tor
having made too few arrests rather than too many
By the third resolution the meeting Indicate their opin
ion that military arrests may be constitutional IN localities
where rebellion actually eIsts but that such arrests are
unconstitutional in localities where rebellion or nsurrec
ton does not actually exist They insist that such arrests
shall not be made outside of the lines of necessary mill
tary occupation and the of insurrecton mas
much however as the Constitution itself makes no such
distinction am unable to believe that there is any such
constitutional distinction concede that the class OF ar
rests complained of can be constitutional only when, in
cases of rebellion INVASION the public safety may require
them and insist that 10 such they constitutional
,ohereper the public safety does require them as well IN
places to which they may prevent the rebellion extending
an in those where it may be already prevailing as well
where they may restrain mischevous interference with
the raising supplying Of armies to suppress the rebel
hon where the rebellion may actually be- as well where
they may restrain the entciDg out Of the army as
where they would prevent mutny in the army equally
constitutional all places where they will conduce to the
public safety against the dangers OF rebellion or nva
sion Take the particular mentioned by the meeting
IL IL asserted 10 substance that Mr. Vallandgham was
by military commander seized and tried for no other
reason than words addressed to public meeting in crt
csm Of the course of the Administration and 10 condem
nation Of the military orders Of the General" Now If
there be mistake about this; If this assertion Is the
truth the whole truth il there no other reason
for the arrest then concede that the arrest wrong
But the arrest, understand, made for very dit
erent reason Mr.. VsIandghsm avows his hostility to
the the part Of the Union and his arrest was made
because he sborng with effect to prevent the
raising Of troops encourage desertion from the army
and to leave the rebellion without adequate military
force suppress it, He not arrested because ne was
damaging the political prospects Of the Administration or
the personal interests Of the commanding General but
because he damaging the army upon the existence and
vigor Of which the life Of the nation depends He was
warning upon the military and this gave the military con-
stitutiona jurisdiction to lay hands upon him. Mr. Val
andigbam was not damaging the military power Of the
country then his arrest made mistake Of fact,
which would be glad to correct reasonable satisfactory
evidence.
he naatin tUhn II