Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-03-23
The naker-PerkIns Corrc.pondenee.
Keep to the Point.

e@"h ." w. ffbcft fe-ttfuhf u iaDv's W
break the force Of the crushing recitation Of Col
BAxERs letter, OF the positions taken in IL. in /
the extract we pablished from the opinion OF
Judge PKRxIxs in she GEifRn vs. Wilcox case.
The party represented BIZ the Journal in seeking
70 demolish Judge PFRKiSs become the apollo
gists and defenders of the exercise Of arbitrary
or despotic power. The European Loyalisss say l
the kim j. supreme-he can do no wrong The
American Loyasts declare in effect that the
will Of ABRAHAM LINCOLN is superior 70 the Con !
stitu,ion-that it is not restrained thereby. but
that his power or control over every citizen is as
absolute despotism make il Ia free
government-a government OF The people--a gov
eminent based upon the sovereignty of the peo-
pie, the Journal argues and declares that all
the rights of the citizen may be subject to the will
ofa President. not the Constitution. but TO the
whims, caprices and dctaton of lalibe or
weak judgment and a corrupt heart. The Jour
nal contends that the rights OF the citizen are
le7s worthy Of respect and protection in time of
rebellion and war than in peace-in fact il does
not admit that the people have any rights what
ever in such a condition Of public affairs, but
that his person and property. soul and body.
wholly subject TO the powers that be. Whoever
protests against such despotism. the Journal pro-
nornces TO be an enemy to the governments
government based upon not only the right, but
the capacity of the people for self government.
The Journal does not NEE, the points made in
Judge PERKINS, decision. IL dare not even publish
il - that its readers may judge OF It's character
for themselves, but endeayOrs 10 deceive them
by rronouncing it to be infamous. Ii aso refers
TO the decision of Judge NILSSON of the U. s.
Supreme Court who held in suit against
Comnodore HcLLISs for the destruction of pro-
peftv by him in his bombardmert of Greytown,
Nicsragua. that his answer that he acting
under the orders of the President of the United
States sufficient. The cases not parallel
and there is no conflict in the opinion cited and
that OF judge PERKINS The attempt of the
Journal TO change the issue is a confession of the
weakness or unteuability of IL position.
Again The Journal charges that Judge Pm.
KiSs Is seeking denomination for the Judge
ship The Judge has expressed to his friends so
last eight months. and that is, that he does not
desire To be a candidate-that he only wishes
that, in coming time his judicial record may show
that during his official term he maintained law and
justice between individuals. upheld the Consiitu-
ton OF the State and the United States, and, as
farasisy e2itmn,ely in his power, protected the
constitutional rights and liberties OF the people.
against the acts of unlaw full arbitrary power. To
keep the points in controversy fairly before the
people We reproduce the issues made by Colonel
BAKER, and in reply thereto We quote extracts
from the opinion OF Judge PERKINS, in the opinion
assailed:
Col. BAxKa writes to Judge PERKINS, of the
Supreme Court of the State of Indiana
You are pleased To say that you issued the
writ OF habeas corpus upon the consent of Capt
Buskirk. and heard the case and discharged
the boy upon the voluntary submission of the
cause by the Captain you, and that in
doing YOU acted in the exercise OF your JUDICIAL
ofnce and in accordance with what your judicial
judgment TIE circumstances surrounding the
case taught YOU il proper TO do. You
further state that YOU have not seen the record
made by the clerk. and cannot therefore speak
of its contents but that IL IL is the desire OF
the Provost Marshal General 10 Investigate the
case YOU refer him TO the Sheriff the Clerk
of the Court and the parties concerned. from
whom that officer can obtain ample information.
In conclusion YOU say you cannot. IN view at the
fact. that il Is made NV duty to report YOU
count of YOUR judicial action to the Provost Mar
shall General. suppress the utterance of the inqui-
~ involuntary arising in your mind, do judicial
tribunals exist in Indiana or il their supposed
istence drcamf' To prevent any implication
for my silence being drawn. that concur in the
imputaton that the civil tribunals of Indiana
have been interfered within the exercise OF their
functions by the military authorities of the Uni
tel States. is the object of this communication
By the act OF Congress OF March 81. 1863. il
j. epacted that during the present rebellion the
President OF the United States. whenever in bis
judgment the public safety may require it, Is
authorized suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus in any case
. through the United States or any part
thereof In pursuance OF this act of Congress.
the President by his proclamation at September
Is. 1868. declared The privilege of the writ of ha
beGs corpus 10 be suspended throughout the UuI-
tel States in certsn classes OF cases. including
the cases Of officers soldiers OF seamen. enrolled.
drafted. or mustered. enlisted in. or belonging
To the land or naval forces OF the United States
and held by authority Of the President of the
United States by any military. naval or civil Off
Ger OF the United States.
In the case in which you ordered the writ,
commanding private AlonzD Z. Turner to be
brought before you the petition upon which your
order directing the writ to be issued was basel.
showed. that Turner hid been enlisted into the
military service Of the United States IN the Com
panv of which Captain Bu,kirk. 10 whom the writ
was directed was the commanding officer. The
return of Capt Bu~kirk. To- the writ also. shows
that Turner WAS in Buskirk CUSTODY as soldier.
and had been enlisted and mustered into the mill
tary service ct the United States. The petition
and return therefore clearly showed that the case
was within the provisions of the act OF Congress
and the procis IN ltiou OF the President. Not
wlthstanding this you commanded Capt. BuSkirk
forthwith 10 discharge Turner from his custody.
on the ground thu. he illegally restrained OF
mis- liberty. he being under the age OF eighteen
years.
In reply. for Judge PERKINS. we copied the
following extract from the opinion delivered BY
HIM in GRIFFIN wilcox:
And while upon this subject it NAV no, be
improper To observe that neither the President
nor Congress has p0wer 70 suspend the issuing
of the writ of hsbeas corpus by State Court
From thl- proposition. tske Il. - luri>t viii
dissent. Indeed. there i nothing IN the act of
Congress of March 81. 1868. cited Supra. that
iusIihes the inference that Congress assumed to
attempt such SUSPENSION. The operation of thai