Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-02-08
A xfow for COnstftutionaI Liberty
Decision of the supreme Conrt of

dutUDTlt1 oi " siA~
In the present juncture Of public aifairs this
question is of absorbing interest to every citizen,
as it involves the rights, and duties and obliga-
tons of all who owe allegiance to the govern
ment As matter of public interest. therefore.
we reproduce the following comments of the
Cincinnati Enquirer upon the decision of the
Court and commend them to the consideration
of all who value constitutional liberty, and are
ready, as we're the patriots of the revolution. to
maintain it with the pledge of their lives. their
fortunes and their sacred honors Says the En-
quirer:
We publish to day decision of the Supreme
Court of Indiana which is worthy the attention
of the friends of constitutional liberty IL is
able examination into the military authority of
the government or, according 10 the current
phraseology of the times, 1.-The power of the
Constitutions" and Indicate in some quarters at
least the tendency TO return to the better doc
trines of happier days. The appellant in the
case a citizen, was arrested and imprisoned upon
a charge of having violated the order OF Pro-
vost Marshal prohibiting the sale of intoxicating
liquors soldiers within the city Of indianapolis
After his release he commenced suit against the
Provost Marshal, Captain Wilcox, for false i'm
DrlSOnmeDL- ne OfDtdltl. III us dISNcr, JuStl-
fed the order and IT'S execution by the command
of his superior. the Provost Marshal of Indiana.
The Common Pleas held the justification stuff
Gent and a bar 10 the suit for damages; and
upon this the appeal was taken TO the Supreme
Court
The doctrine supported by the advocates of the
war power, and practiced upon by the Admins
trstion, is that the fact of the existence of war
any where within the boundaries OF the original
Union conferred upon the Administration the le-
climate power to suspend the civil law every
where, and to subject the people to the operation
of martial law, declared and executed by military
officers. acting under the EXPRESS or implied au-
thOrity OF the President The end sought TO be
obtained was to reduce the citizen, so far his
obligation TO obedience concerned. to the
condition of soldier OF the army, aud to exalt,
in all cases, wherever the Administration should
choose. the military above the civil jurisdiction.
Ii is strange that men protesting to regard con-
stitutional liberty as valuable should be found
not only upholding practices in conformity with
this idea, but actually taxing their faculties to
construct arguments in support of them upon
principle but il is less true than it is strange.
Ii is "A fact that there never despotism up
on the face of the earth that had not its advO
Gates among those who assumed to be wise in
matters of government, and 10 be guided by mo-
tives of the most dsintereSted character;ahd il be
fore this. in the United States. hopes of better
things had been entertained. nothing is truer in
the light of past events than that such hopes
without foundation.
Ii j. not our design to review the decision OF
the Supreme Court of Indiana at length. The
doctrines which it uphOlds are those which We
have, in our imperfect way, underworld to keep
before the minds of the people. for which we
have, in innumerable instances been taxed with
dsloyalty. In the eyes Of the organs Of the Adj
ministration, when appearing in the columns of
the Enquirer, they have been the badges OF
treason. and proof positive of sympathy with
secession. Nevertheless, they are doctrines with
out the recognition of which no good can result
from war. nor any safety follow peace return
to them in practice ia the only thing thai can
give efficiency to military operItiOns, or preserve
the country from that anarchy which now
thre ttens to overthrow all law and constitution.
and make despotism the only refuge from even
greater misfOrtunes.
The decision is an able and conclusive defense
of the rights of the citizen and Of the civil jurs
dictiOn in all places where actual war does not
exist "The existing rebellion in the United
States" saws the Court "vast as is its extent is
not general, but local. 1t is confined to the
Southern States IL is sectional rebellion
The right of the military officers to govern by
martial law arises from the fact of existing or
Immediately impending force. at given place
and time. against legal authority" Governments
have no right to create in a tranquil section,
and in the midst of peaceful population; and by
virtue of such creation take the rule from the
hands of the civil authorities. declare new
crimes. and constitute tribunals TO nfllct upon
citizens, i'm no way subject to military rule
new and barbarous pInishments. SAYS the
Court:
ave feel constrained. then, TO come to the
conclusion that the power of the President Is
limited 10 the simple right OF exercising martial
law. simply as a military chief, locally and TEN
porariy, where actual or Immediately impending
force renders it military necessity. No Other
doctrine can be recOnciled with the Constitution
of the United States. or is compatible with the
liberties of the people
| Entirely germain to the matter IN hand are Ger
tain remarkssof the Court having relation TO ths
political condition OF the rebellon-its original
design, and the effects of its success. To over
throw the Government of the United States. de
stroy constitutional liberty, and extinguish for
ever all hopes of the existence Of free institutions
are the crimes with which the leaders OF the re
belliOn are charged with having resolved TO con
summate The war is. therefore, represented by
the organs of the party in power as war for Ito
erty; and we are constantly being told, in the
| face of its obvious untruth. that. il the South
shall succeed, gone will be the hopes OF freedom
/ I'd NOW anu iOfcNtT lulttus 81 StItt
uously determined those organs TO have thi,
fasehoOd believed. that to deny its truth has beer
put upon the footing of treason against the Gov
eminent; and the time has been when he would
be worthy to be considered a courageous mlr
who should dre to affirm in public asSembl,
that we were simply fighting for the doctrine o
territorial indivisbility. and that neither civil Ito
erty nor the Constitution were. IN any way, nee
essarily implicated in the result. In corrobora
ton Of the views which we have sometimes ex
pressed, therefore, we are glad TO cite the opn
ion of the Supreme Court Of Indiana-a bod,
whose loyalty few will dare to impugn:
"The rebellion itself did not originate in AM
attempt. as we have read its history. to over
throw the Government of the Tilted States: and
now il is Ostensibly prosecuted for that purpose
The rebellion consists in an attempt, If we hav,
read Alright, to withdraw n certain portion of the
people and territory from under the jurisdiction
OF the Government of the United Staies-to iii
vide the Union. leaving the North under existing
government, and placing the South under new
created government"
That is to say. tie people Of the South ar,
trying To do that which the ancestors OF the PEG
pie of the United States, North aud South. trie,
TO do on smother occasion. and succeeded. Tn,
doctrine upon which the first attempt mad,
was that ''the Just powers of the government ar,
derived from the consent of the governed +" Tn,
acts OF the PATRIOTS OF the American Revolution
are apply described in the very words in which
the Supreme @ purt OF Indiana describes the act
of the leaders of the rebelion; consisting "in al
attempt to withdraw portion Of the people an'
territory IRON under the jurisdiction Of the Gov
eminent of Great Brittin-"to divide the Uuiol
-letving" England "under existing government
aud placing" America "under newly creates
government"
Ia denying TO the President the right Ito &C
upon martial law. without its having frs. de
clared by the sovereign power of the State" tn