The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1864-08-19
Another Clear EXPEDITION Of Presi.
dental UsurpasionS.

oOA GU uAo uOOlolOA AL VhO St1oO VI OOuOl al
DIX and other military officers, against
whom action had been taken for illegal
suppression of the World and Journal of
Commerce, which papers, it will be re-
membered, were seized and their business
stopped in consequence of their inadvert-
emily publishing the bogus proclamation
concocted by JOSEPH HowARD, Jr. After
a careful examination of the matter 10
all its bearings, Judge RUSSELL has con-
Guided to hold Gen. DIX, and those con-
cerned with him in executing the mad
ness of the President, subject to the &C
ton of the grand jury of the city and
county. His opinion is but another clear
exposition of the usurpations of the Pres
ident, which must be checked in some
manner, or all semblauce of civil liberty
will soon disappear from our government
We ask careful perusal of the following
extract from Judge RussE1L's opinion:
The defendants, General Dix and others]
through through their council. place them
selves under the protection of section of the
Act of Congress of March g. 1868, entitled IAN
act relating to hdbeas corpus and regulating
judicial proceedings in certain cases" If that
provision is constitutional 1t assimilates the
President Of the United States during the ex-
istence OF the present rebellion to an absolute
monarch, clothes him with all the imaginary
perfection of that monarch. and makes him in
capable of doing any wrong. If the act of
in nyooetinu "a I'm ;,,t
particular commended for by the defense it does
look as though it impaired to the President
powers raising him above the instrument that
creates bis office. and giving him the right.
In his discretion, to obey that instrument or
not. The principle is not movted for de-
cision In this CAGE as to how far the President
can act upon q State in which Instruction OF
rebellion prevails and where the power of the
civil authorities have been suspended, and the
civil law substantially exploded. In such q
condition OF things he must and ought to have
very great powers in order TO restore and main
tain the laws. fntis state the cioiI poscer is and
has al'cays been, IN the ascendant Our citizens
are supposed TO enjoy the blessings of the Fed
eral Constitution, and repOse under the benign
operations of their own Immediate legislature.
II o rebellion in any of the insurrectiOnary
States can deprive them Of this, then the gov
eminent OF every State in the Union ls at the
mercy of every other State. 1t cannot be pos
sble that any effort to suppress an insurrec.
ton In q secedi g State requires any disturb
ance OF the Institutions OF the loyal States If
the President can direct anything to be done IN this
Store lie pleuses, and his order Is per ect shield
to thosecAo obey his commands he 6ecomes a
despOt, and IS no longer the chief magistrate
Of free people. The distinction, then is
between what he can order to be done i'm 10y
al State and one which is rebellious, and claims
TO have retired from our Confederacy 1t he Is
hess, Ia
giance, and to force il to submit to the Federal
Consultation and the laws enacted in pursuance
Of it, Is he empowered to obliterate, and, Tor
the time being, to wipe out all institutional
guarantees in favor Of the former7 It onght
to be the law, If 1t is not, that the will of The
President Is not supreme in loyal State. To
q certain extent, the Federal government, like
an Individual is protected by State laws, and
in return Is TO respect and obey them. Thu sc
suggestions would appear to be fairly de
ducible from the healthful principles estab-
iished by the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States in Little vs. B.rreme, 2 Cranch
40, and Luther vs.. Barden, q Howard u. 8
Rp. 1. They certainly sanction the doctrine
that governments, like individuals must not
only enforce but obey the laws The provi
sions Ofthe act of Congress relied upon for the
defence has come under review BY the Su.
preme Court of the State of Indiana, in Griffen
w. Wilcox. II Indiana r 376 which Court
pronounced against It's cOnslitutiOnalitv in ref.
erence to the rights Of its citizens as second
and exercised under ifs own laws The prize
cases. 2 Black United States r. 635, do not
conflict with the grounds taken for the prose-
cution IN this case The position OF this State
10 my view. is this INTERNALLY we are enjoy
Ing our civil government. as though NO other
State had repudiated it's allegiance to the
Union externally, we are participating in an
effort to subdue q plumber Of refractory States.
1t seems scarcely possible that the Pres.