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

sne, and quoted Little aet Barreme G. Cranch, i79S
The effect of the defense proposed Is to set the Ex
for the orders probably 20 be found In the Presidents
repy 10 the address OF the Chicago clergy 1862, viz
AS Comnander.in.Ch Chief Of the Army and Navy, IN
time Of war suppose have night TO take any meas
pre which NAV best subdue the enemy" Bot the plea
is a bold defense Of usurpation Mr.. Hall adroitly
quoted from the Republican address at pittsburgh;
February o. 1885, which well says on this head; All
usurpaton in countries protesting to be free must nave
the color Of law for Its support No outrage eommed
by power upon popular rights is LEFT without some
attempt at vndication. The partition OF Poland,
the overthrow Of the Constitution OF Hungary
the destruction Of Irish independence &c.. were
WIN IN, sess sc IS ,s .sctSn
Ia 10 delegate 20 the Executive the rights TO practically
legslate the exception to an act else unlawful Con
gress generally authorized him to perform unknown,
nimtable unIneasured, boundess wrongs. and he is
20 select or create the specalties Of them Calgua
wrote his laws but hung them mp 10 high they could not
be read, and the citizen was punished wheh ne eoud
not know the law But Congress does not even specify
the law Ii allows the President 10 frame II within his
own breast and apply IL after an oense has been col
mi.ted. Suppose the President should by telegraph;
order Marshal Murray to arrest Gov. Seymour, ana ii
he resisted shoot him Suppose the Governor did resist
and the Marshal killed him and tried In Albany for
homicide would that order absolye HIM legislative
body when clothes with legality act otherwise I'M
lawful must specify the act New-fork Legislature
might grant the corporation OF this city power to legal
ize or permit otherwise nuisance by specifying H.
Coad 1t grant such power by saying, may permit any
nnsanccr When legislative body acts specifically,
bat makes its enaetments contingent upon an event De-
yond It's control that enactment IS unconstitutional De
cause its power is sub niOd0 delegated Quoting
Barto agt Himrod, New.York, 1861 When the edi'
tor OF The Louisiana Courier published Qriday March
g. 1879 the famous article about Gen Jacksonnarilal
law pIevaing-the latter did not suppress the paper
but upon obtaining from the editor the name oil she
writer, arrested him. At that time New-Oreans was
q camp and Judge Hall soldier (2PartoDs acssOn
3l4. These seizures and destruction OF May. ls64
clearly in the light OF punshSents IN advance OF
investigation trial. AT this - New ork was not
II - ~ atrlra
soldiers NewYork was in full possession OF all her
civil immuniies The case OF Gen. jacks was one
occurring within warke lines and In tie presence oil
an enemy. 1t a case Of military necessity Pr &C.
Mr.. H. referred 10 r. j. Waikers report on bill re-
funding fine a. Benton ABR, o4O aud general debate
that subject dbid, and Is ibid. MI Hall then pro-
ceeded 70 argue the power outside Of the statute
lie said understand our opponents 10 claim that
the arrest and seizures made by virtue Of over
ruling military necessity. because NeT'fork wac at
war a. All integral portion of the Union, and be
claimed that this Overriding military necessity can
not occupy better vantage ground than that held by
martial laws that as martial law cannot operate beyond
the field Of actual warlike operations no more can
military necessity" and that both are unconstitu
tional unless in face of enemy q insnrrectonists
Luther w. Borden, 2 Howard United States 49,
Even where there is martial law and it is exercised
for the purposes OF oppression any injury Is wiuy
done person or property the party by whom, or by
whose order II was committed would undoubtedly be
anSwerable" Qbid p. i6) But there is ground for
saving that New.Yort city in May 1904. was in Illegal
cnndtlon 10 allow OF military necessity Can martial
law and civil exist together 10 be sure the President
in his recent Kentucky Proclamation this legal
c0o1isence; but In what treatise international law
lie the assumption substantiatedi Not In Halleck.
Nor is it compatible with their nature. Tbs is
clearly indicated by the course of reasoning OF
the United States Supreme Court, in .Luthcr vs.
Borden. Howard case under the Dorr Rebel
hon. Win any one be bold enough to say, IN view Of
tho history Of our ancestors and ourselyes that the
President of the United States extend martial law
over the entire country or over any defined geograph
cal partthsreof save IN connection with some paTtiou
ufnpa " he
Curtis (eIJudge) on EI. Power. p. 81 The prize
cases relied upon by our opponents % Black u :
Ron y. 633) 10 prove that the whole nation IL In
state Of war. But the prosecution claim that the dec
SION In question expressly limits the nes'of within
the lines Of bayoneis and blocknding squadronsesy
ing all beyond such lines within the uniettered exercise
she WIS during the Whisky Insurrectiofor tie Dorr
Rebellion. But suppose the point be conceded, then
y is argued ttnt vhsn We were engaged N w.r WIN
OF military necessity could not eonsttutionoy act
upon the citiEcn but only upon the soldier. During
the las war with Great Britain Chief Justice Kent dis
chargeo n military prisoner held by Gen Morgan
Lewis The prisoner naIaed Samuel Stacy. jr. !
Commodore Chaunccy verbally ordered Capt
smith 10 Stacy for being reasonably connected
with the enemy. Smith delivered hin to Gen Lewis,
Who confined him. through his provost marshal under
the following order: Receive INTO custody &e.. Sam
uel Stacy charged by tie said Commodore with act
OF high treason against the Government Of the United
states committed within the territory Of the King Of
Great Britain Chambers. Assistant AdjutaniGen'
eTal"
In delivering the opinion 40 John, 31) Judge Kent
recognized the fact that Commander IN Chief had
more lawful authority 10 hold all the citizens OF the
tire country outside OF the sphere of his actual opera
ons In The field amonabe 90 his military edicts than
he had 20 hold all the property OF the country subject 10
his military regnsitions that he u not the military
commander Of citizens Of the United States but Of It'd
soldiers To tie same effect The argument Of Sen
ator Linn the bin 70 refund Jacksons hne "a Ben |
p. G2. In parity Of illustration are hnekIe vs. Money
q lson, 2O3) and Sir Charles Gould case e Hen.
H. Rsp D. gc) Unless therefore, the plea VI military
power overriding the fundamental law from the neces
stiles II and overwhelming warlike force can
be sustained then the acts Of the President were un
constitutional Because be arrested without due pro
cess" and his seizures were Unreasonable. But the
constitutional question has been expressly determined
in favor prosecution by the Supreme Court OF In
diana The Court held The section In question uDeon-
sttutional Griffin VS.. Wilcox, q Indiana. 800 Mr.
Hall read this case at length. especially emphasizing
this PASSAGE II thOse sacred rights among which are
the liberty Of speech Of the press and freedom Of cleo
onsvhi the three great bulwarks Of free nsti-
tutons-are TO be stricken down and permanently de-
stroyed BY armed force; II that force is not to be
used t restore the lust authority OF glorious
Government but merely 10 establish, by wadi3g through
seas VI blood single consolidated Government. having
for its certain chimericel ideas Of phan
thropy fraternity aud equality, social and POLITICAL OF
all races Of without respect to color then It might
not be 30 readily conceded that imperative necessity
would require that the force should De kept up sole
for such pnrpose.'
Mr. Hal claimed that the language above quoted is |
but judicial vndication Of similar uleranees by the
Presidents political friends in Former times He read
from speech Of Burlpgame Appendix 70 Congress
sona Globe. 1850 600, as follows ii, sT nee
dom OF speech IL not TO remain TO u.s. what IL all this
government worth = Also from speech Of Repre-
sentative Bealc Republican. June H. lsOO (Congres.
siona Globe Goth Congress part T. p. 42D; We viii
take from the President rights guaranteed 10 him by
the Constitution. We win infringe upon none But, Sr,
We are bound tn witch With jealous eye the prerognyes
OF any officer. And will watch those OF the Prcsi,
dent We will keep them within the defined limits, aud
ue will denOunce their undue exercise"
Mr. Hall closed hs elaborate and eloquent argument, |
Of which we have been ab!o ~ give only the leading
az i HnVmQuue