Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-03-14
WEEKLY SENTINEL.
MONDAY, MARCH IA.
ssCOrrespOndence between Col. Baker
and Judge Perkins"

dressed to Hon. s. E PERKINS, Judge of the
Supreme Court Of Indiana, briefly recapitulated
the case and says:
eft is my duty to report all such cases to the
Provost Marshal General, and for that purpose I
have procured a copy of the record. / deem il
but right, however, that / should send with the
record any explanation of the grounds of your
action that you may see proper to submit"
This letter is headed "OfHce Headquarters A
p. NJ. g. for Indiana" and signed CONRAD BA-
KER. Col. and A. P. NJ. G."
The Journal says "the original letter sent to
the Chief Justice by Col. BAKER an act of
kindness, and strictly pirate" Would "strict-
ly private" letter. if so intended. have the
official impress of the letter of Col. BAKER to
Judge PERKINsl There is no evidence whatever
but that it was meant to be an official communi-
cation. The Journal adds:
1.-THE fact that Col Baker was about to send
the record of the case to Washington, and that
he had addressed his letter to the Chief Justice,
was known only to them; but the Judge at once
carried the matter to the Sentinel, that forum in
which be delights to preside. in which it was
pompOusly announced that there was a coz
hict of jurisdiction, falsely stating the character
of it. thus making it necessary for Col. Baker
to publish the correspondence to put himself
and the Government right before the public.
The Judge did not carry the matter to the
Sentinel We-did not learn from him personally,
nor By written or oral communication, that cor
respondence had taken place between him and
Col. BAKER He did not know that any notice
would be taken of the matter in the Sentinel;
neither did he request, in any way intimate.
that there might be. And we had not intended
to make any notice of the affair until we learned
late in the evening, that the facts in the case
had been sent abroad BY telegraph. 1t appears
from the correspondence. as published by au-
thOrity of Colonel BAKER, that the
original letter not marked private,
and that it was signed officially; hence
Judge PERKINS had the right to show it to whom
he pleased. We. however, never the letter
OF copy of it until it appeared in the Journal.
Col. BAKER second letter, dated the 9Th, was not
received by Judge PERKINS until the evening of
the llth, the evening before the morning that it
appeared in the Journal That, at all events,
was not an act of kindness and strictly private"
but was prepared with deberation for publica
ton and buncombe. So much for the PERSONAL
ity of the affair.
What motive influenced Col. BAKER in indting
the first letter. If il was not intended to call
the Judge to account, why was an apology re-
quested7 Col. BAKER says that he did not intend
to be understood that it was his duty or purpose
10 report the Judge to the Provost Marshal
General, but only the case. What reason
or object in reporting the case, unless to
reach and operate upon the judicial officer whose
decision in it Col. BAKER, A. p. NJ. g., pro-
nounces to be in conflict with the authority and
orders of the Federal Executive7 Any other
view of the matter is simply absurd. The first
letter of Col. B. states that Judge PERKINS adj
Indicated the case, .and ordered that the soldier
be discharged, although the record showed that
the case was embEaced by the Presidents pro-
clamation suspending the writ of habeas corpus
as to certain classes of persons" Col. BAKER
reiterates in his last letter that il his duty to
report all such cases, not all such Judges, &c Is
the case then, TO be put trial. and punished if
found to be an offender? Or is there no other
purpose in reporting such cases but to file them
in the pigeon-holes of the Prov. Mar. Gen1 in
Washington
The views and arguments OF Col BAKER are
based upon the idea that the country is in an an
Omalous condition, hence the President is justified
in any violation Of the Constitution and the
rights OF the citizen and any exercise of arbitrary
power Il is nothing less than the reproduction
of the argument of absoluteism, ''that the King
can do no wrong" We trust that the American
a..
strous usurpation of one-man power, but that
they viii boldly and manfully stand by the judi
cial officers who have the courage to uphold the
Constitution and laws, and demand obedience
thereto. The Administration is not the Govern
ment ABRAHAM LINCOLN, WILLIAM H. SEW
AID. SALMON P. CHASE, Z. NJ STANTON. GIDEON
WELLEs, MONTGOMERY BLAIR, JOHN p USHER
and EDwARD BATES are not the Government. and
they have no more right 70 usurp authority and
violate constitutional obligations than the hum
best citizen. All alike owe allegiance to the
Constitution. The very object OF the Judiciary
is to adudicate the rights and the responsibilities
of the citizen and the powers and obligations oil
those in authority, but Col. BAKER and partizans
like him. cannot rise above party vassaIage
and are willing to dencunce judicial officers who
differ with them in political principles, as failing
to recognize the Federal authority for any pur-
pose or any subject" for the reason that they re-
gard the Constitution as Of binding authority.
The charge Of the Journal that Judge Pea
KISs has been on all sides Of all questions comes
with i'll grace from that source. The ceutra
organ Of the Republican party Of Indiana hat
been on all sides Of the question. Colope
BAKER saws. also. that the Supreme Court OF In
diana without let or hindrance from the Fedora
authorities, make decisions inimicaI to the dis
cipine and efficiency of the Federal soldier,
Whenever their judicial judgment moves
them thereunto." This charge is il
direct conflict with the facts. Judg,
PKnkrNs was the first judicial officer to decide
that the governments entitled TO the service
of all who had enlisted as soldiers between tb'
ages of eighteen and twenty-one. Republican
lawyers and judges took different view of th'
subject, but h:s opinion was adopted in this sn'
other States in regard 20 the release OF minor
who had volunteered in the United States serv
ice This decision was made in June. 1861
Was that decision. which has been consistent.
adhered to, ~ininicsI to the discipline and Ell
cheney ofthe Federal sodery"i
We do not propose now to discuss the right o
Judge PERxIss TO issue the writ Of habeas corpu
in the case referred To-. but only to show the falls
charges and assumptions Of the Journal aBs
Cor. BAxER, and the partisan preiudices and pur