The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1863-07-03

court, to be further dealt with according to
shall be the duty of the District Attorney of the
United States to attend to such examination
before the judge.
Sec. g. And be it further enacted, That in
case any such prisoner shall be under indict-
ment, or presentment for any offence against
the laws of the United States, and by existing
laws bail or q recOgnizance may be taken for
the appearance for trial of such person, it shall
be the duty of said judge at once to discharge
such person upon the bail or recognizance for
trial as aforesaid. And in case the said Secre-
taries of State and War shall, for any reason,
refuse, or omit to furnish the said list of per-
sons held as prisoners aforesaid at the time of
the passage of this act, within twenty days
thereafter, and of such persons as hereafter may
be arrested, within twenty days from the time
of the arrest, any citizen may, after a grand
jury shall have terminated its session without
finding an Indictment or presentmenr as pro-
vided in the second section of this act, by pc
tition alleging the facts aforesaid touching any
of the persons as aforesaid imprisoned, sup
ported by the oath of such petitioner or any
other credible person, obtain and be entitled to
have the said judges order to discharge such
prisoner on the same terms and conditions pre-
scribed in the second section of this act: Pro-
vided, however, That the said judge shall be
satisfied said allegations are true.
This law is carefully drawn Itreceived
the unanimous support Of the Presidents
partizans in Congress, and the approval of
the President himself. 1t was intended,
in conjunction with the other legislation of
the session, to do away entirely with the
whole system of military trial and punish
ment, which had for two years been
steadily growing and encroaching upon
the personal liberties of the people, and to
confine the administration of justice to the
courts, where it belongs. 1t is true that
this act proceeds upon the assumption that,
in time of civil war there may be condi-
tons of society in which the President
ought to suspend the writ of habeas cor
pas, and order the arrest of mischievous
persons. He is thus to act, whenever, in
his judgment, the "public safety" may
require it. But the law regards such
times as occasional and temporary. and
directs mode for the proper judicial trial
of all who may be irregularly seized and
imprisoned. 1t nowhere contemplates or
allows the trial of civilians by court mar
tial. It directs that their names must be,
Gas soon as practicable, transmitted to
the judges of the circuit and district
courts of the United States, for Indictment
by the grand jury; and in the event that
the grand jury adjourns without finding a
bill against them, the judges are to dis
charge the accused. Nothing can be
clearer or more explicit than this; nothing
can show more tender regard for the
rights of the citizen, or stronger deter
mination on the part of the lawgiver to
keep the military power subordinate to the
civil. Under the provisions of these laws,
VALLAND1eHAM was a political prisoner
and it was the duty of the Secretary of
War to report him as such to the circuit
and district judges of the district in which
his supposed offences were committed, to
be regularly tried by the civil tribunal.
His trial by BURNs1DEs military court, in
the face of the law, was the grossest, most
palpable, the least justi6able, and least
excusable outrage upon personal liberty
ever committed by governmental authority.
1t will pass into history as such; and the
marvel will be, not, perhaps, that it was
done, but that it was submitted to, with
out revolution.
We trust the Press will not stigmatze
us as "copperhead for presenting the
laws relating to reasonable offences, nor
for their application to the case which has
provoked the argument between us.
These laws were passed by a Republican
Congress, and approved by the same Re-
publican President who perjures himself
in their violation. The order in which we
present them, and even the interpreting
comments, are those of the New York
Evening Post, the highest Republican
authority. IT the Press don't like the
laws, it must blame its own partizans for
their enactment. If it don't like the inter-
probation given to them, it must open its
batteries on WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT
But, so long as the laws are as they are, it
must not blame us for insisting that the
President shall heed and obey them, the
same as any other citizen; nor can it hold
us to disloyal account, if we stand on the
same ground with TRUMBUL1, and COLA
MER, and others who are first among the
ablest Republican leaders, and treat the
violation of these laws by the President as
usurpation and crime.