Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1863-04-17

are prisoners under military authority" 1t is
sald and upon authority which your military Cap
tain at Salisbury cannot dispute, that middle
course has been pursued which, as in the case OF
Thomas kenneday, Of Wayne, No. 40 on the list Of
prisoners, is as follows They arc npSrcVully al
lo'ced TO go into eciLe to escape endless iprisOR
nenL You, Sir, cannot but be sensible that the
exacton of such an alternative punishment involves
both trial and judgment. The prisoner, as a
preliminary step to the privilege of choosing be-
tween the horns OF the sentence-perpetual impris-
oment without tho hope of a trial on the one hand,
and exile from his family and native land on the
other-Enust of course admit such guiltiness as de-
serves one or the other punishment.
But, Sir, allow to inquire of you in what law,
civil or military, State Confederate do you find
the authority thus to dispose of citizen accused of
dlSloyalty, for such is the charge against Mr. Ken
neday2 Being civilian, he had the constitutional
right (art l, sec. 9, 7 l6,) 70 refuse to "be held
to answer for an infamous crime unless on present
ment or indictment of a grand jury" And even
alter conviction, he could not have been punished
with exile, because such punishment being both
"cruel and unusual, :" is forbidden to be inflicted.
(Art- l, sec. 9, T19.) Yet under your ministra-
ton, this citizen of North Carolina-and how many
others know not the secrets of the prison house
are probably kept in the bosom of its redoubtable
Captain-was adjudged to suffer an interminable
Imprisonment or go into banishment The worst days
the Stuarts can furnish nothing more thoroughly
lawless or despotc At this day, such an act of an
English minister would fire every soul in the land.
You will pardon our feeling against this outrage
when We inform you that, nearly century ago,
North Carolina transpanted into its fundamental
guarantees Of liberty the 46th section of Magma
Charta, that no freeman ought to be taken, i'm.
prisoned, dsseized of his freehold liberties, or
privileges, outlawed or exed, or in any manner
destroyed deprived of his life liberty, or proper
ty, but by the law of the land"
Your report, in specifying the charges pre-
ferred," distinguishes the several kinds and pre-
sents the of sixty four imprisoned for dis
loyalty" and eighteen for being Union men,
If We may judge of the grounds for the arrest and
detention of those still ncarcerated from the returns
to the few writs Of habeas corpus that have entered
the prison walls we may fairly conclude that there
never was an oath TAKEN either to arrest detain
one of the prisoners, before his examination by
commissioner, since If one could be moved 10
ridicule in the examination Of subject so sad and
touching to humanity, the classification of the
"charges preferred" against the prisoners would
furnish an ample theme for its indulgence. Thus
No. 6 is "strong Union Mos 10, ST. 81,
9S simply Union men, Nos. 80, 55, &C, 20, and
many others, "avowed Unonists." No. 90, "dan-
gerous Union man, ,"-56, "suspicioned of going to
enemy, Union man,, suspicious character,
avowed Unlonist -, dangerous, ,"-93, "dan-
gerous man. "-99, "suspieiOaed of reasonable con-
duct"-7S and 18S, "going to Kentucky, taken
within the enemys lines"
Such are specimens of the charges preferred"
which those accused Of them have the constitution
al right to meet speedily and publicly. Have they
not been denied the right ito be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusatony' Do you
think, Sir, lawyer, that the charges preferred"
furnish any such information {? "To be confronted
with the witnesses against them" When were
they offered this privilege? ITO have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in their iaVor."-
When has this right been extended to them? And
finally, to have the assistance of counsel for de-
fence" The denial of this right has been as noto
rous and avowed as the existence of the prison it.
self
In your report you inform the President that
"under the examinations that have been made q
large number of prisoners have been discharged"
Thus it appears that from fragrant disregard by
your subalterns Of that probable cause supported
by oath or affirmation" which is demanded by the
Constitution before any arrest be made, "a
large number Of innocent persons have been snatch
ed from their families by the rash hand of military
power, and doomed to languish in Jail for many
months in violation Of the solemn guarantees of the
itI;tin the nf
! But you proceed TO conclude your report by an
nouncing, as some consolation for past enormities
! that "none are retained unless there be cause
Of suspicion, supported by testimony rendering it
probable that the discharge Of the prisoners would
be preudicial to the public interests" Without
looking to your report Of charges preferred" we
had evidence that at the time it was penned there
one, at least and great to believe there
were many persons pining in the prison, arrested
upon suspicion wholly unsupported by proof or
truth, who, if brought before an intelligent Judge,
! would have been discharged instantly OF hearing
| the evidence. But, Sir, you have been deceived.
We do not suppose that you have examined for
yourself the Testimony indeed there be any
upon which you say the prisoners detained, but
have made your report upon the information of
others. Indeed, We think it likely you have
read over the list of the prisoners still confned
for if you had you would have taken instant means
to have released Nos. 8, 32, and 81 against whose
names stand the words, " No charges pretsrred,"-
the fist of whom at the date of your report, had
been confined upwards of fifteen months; the sec.
ond fourteen months and the third more thaa five
months. Against these .here is, of course, "tes-
timonY" preferring CHARGE but there they are,
sad monuments of the deaf ear and pitiless eye Of
military power.
You inform the President that the conmissi oaer
had directions in these words, "o discharge those
against whom well grounded cause of suspicion