New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-07-11


then he repudiaed the suggestion as en-
tirely ruinous TO general liberty. He asked IL tnero
was anything In the pages or IN the history Q, tue lou
sttution from which they might conclude that there
inherent power In Congress- notwithstanding tue
prohibition Of the Constitution TO pass such an act as
that brought in justification of these defendants III
there was they must conclude that there something
inherent in the authority Of the Legislature enabling
them 10 infringe the personal liberty Of the citizens lie
admitted the difference between martial law and the
law administered by Courts Martial The martial
law which accom- anied the presence OF hostile
army was not contemplated by the argument
The martial law under which this act was attempted TO
be justified was that which oyerrdes all civil courts
the will Of the General aloneand had been pronounced
by the Duke Of Wellington TO be no law at all. This
martial law had It's authority in state OF siege the
last stage Of legal and national exhaustion There
sisted s origin and necessity and it must be confined
that state of siege This sort Of law had no exist
anee in the English Constitution and Ill attempts TO
establish such principle had been defeated, especially
the attempt Of Charles |. Against usurpaion was d.
rected the Petition Of Rights and from that time
al lew had ceased TO exist within the realm OF Great
Britain Lord Loughborongh, Blackstone. and Balam
had al decided that martial law could exist Ia En-
gland in time Of peace. The Petition Of Rights re-
pcated the principles Of Magma Charta, the very key
stone of English liberty and the foundation of ours and
are but parnphrased in the provisions OF our Consttu-
ton. The Bill OF Rights raafrmed these principles,
with the addition that where habGas corpus might be
suspended martial law prevailed as matter OF course,
but could not be argued that because Congress and
the President could suspend habSes corpus, therefore
they coad anywhere establish martial law. All the state
Constitutions had affirmed tie inyi0ability Of personal
liberty except by the due process Of law. Ire also
quoted the Declaration Of Independence as indicative
OF the descent of these great and immortal prince iee
His Honor would that there was no martial law in
England, that thsS Declaration of Independence de,
carcd the suDordinaton OF the military 10 the civil
power and that the only State in the Union recognizing
martial law the State of Massachusetts by the ae-
ton Of the Legislature To come down TO the Consti'
tuition did 1t accept or reject this traditional liberty
Listen TO what it said; "No person shall be deprived OF
life" &c. And further; mo soldier shall in time Of
peace be quatered in any house without the consent o
the owner. nor in time Of war but In manner pre-
scribcdby law"
The founders Of the Constitution bad refused 10 fol-
low the example Of Massachusetts, and grant Congress
the power OF declaring martial law 1t was true, the
power of declaring martial law In England under GER
tain circumstances lay with the Crown and Parliament
with the sovereign power of the land. Therefore lay
with the sovereign power Of the State Of but
Congress the sovereign power here il was the
Governor and Legislature. This act Of Congress- there
fore, infringement OF State rights, aud there
fore repugnant 10 the Constitution; and laws repug
uant TO the Constitution, Il well established were
OF no force at all He now came 10 consider the cir
cumstaBcos under which martial law might be pro
claimed and this question read several extracts from
various legal authorities deciding that where the civil
courts in operation martial law could not c6exist
that IL cond not prevail except whore anarchy existed
Besides martial law mnst always be proclaimed. Here
there proclamation Of IT, and further the procla
nation must define the district over which martial law
may extend In order that martial law might prevail
necessary that actual war should exist in the terri
tory under it, In government Of this description, war
against the Central Government was not war against
or i'm each separate and sovereign State state
only existed far the States were concerned where
war was actually raging Even In England In the last
instance in which marital law was proclaimed It was
proclaimed only in Ireland where an insurrection eI'
ised and there only, the act recited because the
civil courts we're imperative. Moreover, although
England then at war with France martial law was
from all other parts OF the Kingdom. There
could not be stronger reason for saying that here
where all the courts OPEN and an army lighting
martial law could not possibly exist. Although he
deprecated ali interference which might prejudice the
war now raging bat they could not forget what
due 10 their civil rights. Let them beware that lest
while their armies were contending at the 'front.' an
abyss might be opened which should swallow up al
their best liberties.
WIN. NJ Evarts esq. then rose 10 reply. and said he
had heard 1t contended that any individual was
exempt from the process Of law or that because man
general governor he stood In relation TO the
law other than other citizens, whether the law was
State or general. But when an Individual held certain
relations 10 society IL might be at the fact be was
Judge or general gave character 20 his acts Such was
The position Of Gen. Dix and his subordinates At no
part OF this inquiry could they fail TO zee that though
these stigmaing phrases were applied TO the conduct
Of Gen. Dix i is nothing but by the merest ana sor
rest technical Interpretation Of the law that can charge
them with personal crime and Violence Let us not
close our eyes minds 20 tho considerations which
forced upon by the very circumstances OF their
alleged crime against tho State Of New York on the
part Of a military officer OF the Government OF the
nted States and that the actual theater Of those acts
Is in the presence Of civil war which seeks the entire
overthrow Of the General Government and the dis
solution of the bonds Of all the States Let 1t also be un
ierstood that II IL civil war In which. the object
and purpose be very great OF the enemies OF our coun
ry their military strength and power Is equal 70 their
objects aud it requires not only all the wisdom and
patriotism and devotion Of the country bat requires
III the military power, all the strength OF mind and Of
neaus and. above all that, without which everything
,omes TO nothing, that unity OF purpose in all loyal
parts Of the country OF all loyal men, whether In the
way Of direct military power or in the strengthening Of
he Of the naon or IN the discussion OF cues
ions that relate 70 the integrity Of our Institutions we
should all remember that unity Of object the safety OF
)ur country ID not only duty but In ia absence the
overthrow Of our country Is sure. Now we are in the
presence of that very delicate questionable relations
between Federal and State Governments II there
De one rule Of general wisdom be- gathered from the
Of the State and the Federal Courts II Is this
that there should be every attention given TO the eb
from the SIDE and the other touch
ng questions between State and Federal Governments.
Whichever side State Federal. seeks or makes al
opportunity Of an issue In such form as arrays the
opinions and passions Of men side or the other
eeks and makes opportunity Of straining the best
Government in the world IN it's weakest point Let US
too that we approach this question In
line Of attempted destruction OF the country, and the
extensive prevalence OF civil war In great regions OF
Jur common territories the actual existence Of host
les the array Of arms and the restraint Of whole com
nunties by the presence OF military force, mas pro
iuced such suppression OF the civil law. that II has
replaced entirely by the military law or the force
of war. don't which you call IT, have no oppor-
unity as w9i as no occasion Tor the a,sc1ssOa
agreeable ~ right reason OF not. We have been but
in scholars in the sod years since the Rebellion broke
,ut, II we have not learned that the sub,
ect Of enjoying liberties under Just and
,qual government, supported by powerful
nation tina. upholds and believes In II is very different
matter from defending that free and equal Government
against hostile power that does not believe in IL or
owe IT, and seeks TO overthrow it; aud II we cannot
earn that the difference between enjoying liberties
and defending them may involve In that defense anu ior