Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-03-14
ssCsrrespendence between Col. Baker
and Judge Perkins,"

and Judge PERKIss IN reference 70 writ OF
hsbe@s corpus issued Ia behalf Of one ALoSzo P.
TrnsLR. a minor in the military service Of the
United States. The case tried and the sol
der vas ordered 10 be discharged
Col BAKER. In a letter dsteI March 7sh. ad-
dressed to Hon s. Z PrRKISs. Judge Of the
Supreme Court of Indiana, briefly recapsulaied
the case, and says;
"ft y nv duty 60 report all such cases TO the
Provost Marshal General. and for thrt purpose |
have procured copy of the record. | deem u
but right, however. that should send with the
record any explanation Of the grounds of your
action that you may see proper to submit"
Tsnis letter j. headed "0fice Headquarters A
pm. g. for Indiana" and signed "CoSRAD BA-
xER. Col and A. p. NJ g."
The Journal says "the original letter sent to
the Chief Justice by Col. BAKER act of
kindness and strictly prioate." Would a "strict-
" private" letter. II so intended. have the
official impress of the letter of Col. BAKER to
Judge PERxIssy There is no evidence whatever
but that il was meant to be official communi-
cation The Journal adds:
The fact that Col Baker about TO send
the record Of the case To Washington, and that
be Ind addressed MS letter 10 the OUeI JuSuce,
was known only to them; but the Judge at once
carried the matter to the Sentinel, that forum in
which he delights TO preside. in which it
DompousIy announced that there col
hict 81 Jurisdiction, falsely stating the character
OF IL, thus making il necessary Tor Col. Baker
To publish the correspondence 70 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 a cor
re~pondeoce had taken place between him and
Col BAKER lie did not know that any notice
would be taken OF the in the Sentinel;
neither did he request, or in any way intimate.
that there might be. And had not intended
to make any notice Of the affair until welearned,
late in the evening. that the facts in the
had been sent abroad by telegraph Ii appears
from the correspondence, as published by au-
thority of Colonel BAKER, that the
original letter was not marked private,
Judge PERKINS had the right to show il TO whom
he pleased. We. however. never the letter
or copy of il until il appeared in the journal.
Col BAKER's second letter. dated the 9Th. was not
received by Judge PERKINS until the evening OF
the Ilth, the evening before the morning that it
appeared 10 the Journal. That at all events,
was not M act OF Kindness and strictly private"
but vas prepared with del,beraton for publica
ton aud buncombe. So much for the personal
it's OF the affair.
What motive influenced Col BAKER in inditing
the first letterr Ii il not intenied to call
main m
auestedg Col BAKER say that he did not intend
to 6c understood that Il was his duty or purpose
To report tue JUICE To the Provost Marshal
General. but only the case What reason
or object ia re ,ortiBg the case. unless to
reach AMI operate upon the judicial officer whose
decision la it O., BAKER Z. NJ q pro
nounc.s be u conf with the authority ami
orders OF the Fcieril ExecutveY Any other
view OF the matter il 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 cs,se wa embraced by the Presidents pro-
eIamstion suspending the writ OF habeas corpus
as To certain classes OF persons" Col BAKER
rei-rates in his last letter that it his duty
report all such cases, not all such Judges, DC. Is
the ease, then. u be put on trial. and punished it
found 70 he an offender7 Or is there no other
purpose in reporting such cases but to file them
in the pigeon-hoes of the Prov. Mar. Gen' in
washingtonf
The views aud arguments OF Col. BAKER are
based upon the idea that the country is in an
ON ,Ioas condition, heuce the President is justified
in any violation of the Constitution and the
rights OF the citizen aud any exercise OF arbitrary
power Ii Is nothing less than the reproduction
of the argument of atsoluteism. that the King
can do no wrong" We trust that the American
people are not prepared to submit 10 this mon
strous usurpalion of cue-man power. but that
they will boldly and nanfuly stand by the judi
cial officers who have the courage to uphold the
Constitution aud laws. aud demand obedience
thereto. The Administration i not The Govern
ment ABRAHAM LINCOLN, WILLIAM II. SEw-
ARD. SALMON T. CHAsK. L NJ STANTON. GIpEoN
WKLLks. MONTGOMERY BLAIR, JONI L. USHER
aud EDWARD BArks are not the Government. and
they have more right to usurp authority aud
violate constitutional obligations than the hum
blest citizen. All alike allegiance to the
Constitution. The very object OF the Judiciary
Is adjudicate the rights and the Responsibilities
of the citizen and the powers and obligations OF
those in authority. but Col. BAkKR, and psrtizAns
like him. cannot rise above party vassalage.
and ara willing TO denounce judicial officers who
differ with them in political principles as failing
to recognize the Federal authority for any pur-
pose any subject" for the reason that they re-
gard the Constitution as of binding authority.
The charge of the Journal that Judge PER-
KISs has been on all sides of all questions comes
with III grace from that source. The central
organ OF the Republican party Of Indiana has
been on all sides of the war question Colonel
BAKER says. also, that the Supreme Cour. oil In
diana without let or hindrance from the Federal
authorities, make decisions inimica To the dis
eipIine and efficiency of the Federal soldiery
whenever their 'jrdicia judgment moves
them thereanto." This charge is in
direct conflict witt the facts judge
PkRkrSs was the first iud.s..! officer to decide
that the government vas entitled TO the services
of all who had enlisted as soldiers between the
ages Of eighteen and twenty-one. Republican
lawyers and judges took differeat view of the
n