The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1864-08-19
Another Clear Exposition of Presi.
Dental CsurpasiOnS.

Judge RUSSELL OF New York has rem
dered his decision in the case of General
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
careful examination of the matter 10
all its bearings, Judge RUSSELL has con-
cluded 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 semblance of civil liberty
will soon disappear from our government
We ask careful perusal of the following
extract from Judge RUssELis opinion:
The defendants, General Dix and others1
through through their council. place them
selves under the protection of section Of the
Act of Congress of March 3. 1863, entitled IAN
act relating to hn5e0s corpus and regulating
judicial proceedings in certain cases" If that
provision is constitutional it 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. aud makes him in
capable of doing any wrong. If the act of
Congress in question Is constitutional in the
particular commended for by the defense it, does
look as though it impaired to the President
powers raising him above the instrument that
creates his 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 Slate 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 a
condition OF things he must and ought to have
very great powers in order TO restore and main
tain the laws In this state the ciciI poscer is and
has GtcGys been, an the usceaoevat Our citizens
are supposed to enjoy the e>sings of the Fed
eral Constitution, and repose under the benign
operations OF their own immediate legislature.
II rebellion in any of the inSurrectiOnary
States can deprive them of this, then the gov
eminent OF every State in the Union 10 at the
mercy OF every other State. 1t cannot be pos
slble that any effort to suppress an insurrec.
ton In secedi g State requires any disturb
ance OF the Institutions OF the loyal States If
tie President can direct anything to be done IN tbs
Stare he pleuses. and his order is per ect shield
to thosenho obey his commands he becomes u
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 O low
tf a ny,<l l, tp1 -,
to have retired from our GOnfederacy. 1t he is
empowered to bring back the latter to i.s allie
glance, and TO force IL to submit to the Federal
Constitution and the laws enacted in pursuance
OF 1t, Is he empowered to obliterate, and. Tor
the time being, to wipe out all institutional
| guarantees in favor Of the former? 1t onght
to be the law, If it is not that the will of The
President is not supreme in a loyal State. To
certain extent, the Federal government. lik.
an individual, is protected by State laws. and
| in return is to respect and obey them. Tn, Sc
suggestions would appear to be fairly de
ducible from the healthtul principles estab-
iished by the Supreme Court of the Uni.
40, and Luther vs. Barden, Z Howard u. \
Rp. I. They certainly sanction the doctrine
| that governments, like individuals must not
only enforce but obey the laws. The proy
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 Gritfen
VS.. Wilcox. Il Indiana r 376 which Cmrt
pronounced against it's conslitulionalitv in ref.
erence to the rights of its citizens a, SECOND
and exercised under it's own laws The nrize
cases: Black United States R. 635, do NOT
conflict with the grounds taken for the prose.
sutlon 10 TINS case. The position OF this State
In my view, Is this-iDternally we are enjoy.
ing our civil government. as though no oiSsr
State had repudiated it's allegiance to the
Enthusiastically, we are participatinr in an
| effort to subdue number Of refractory States.
/! 1t seems scarcely possible that the Pres.