Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1865-02-02

Va oe'ASAAty IA A"N oiAN W
him its substance.
1t is not easy to define the limits OF the
power which may be exercised by the Pres
ident in time Of war. He is made the head
OF the Executive department of this Govern
ment, and Com mander in chief OF the Army
ana Navy. He is enjoined to see the laws
faithtulIy executed. In times OF civil or for
egn war, he Is invested with full author
ity, to use every power and every means which.
in his Judgment, are necessary 10 the efficient
conduct OF that war, for the defense or preser-
walton Of the country. The rights OF property
liberty and life, are all committed to his chsrge
especially within the theatre of the war The
only responsibility imposed upon him by the
Constitution and the laws, is that he exercise
- - --- --a>~~a" ~nwars iStru..Aa
him in s.good faith upon peru o. Impeachment
We cannot forget the circumstances or this dis
Ilct fer the past three years and especially
tnat during that period there has been ap-
pointed over it q Military Governor. Who
mas questioned the exercise OF this authority
No one; and vet to such authority, in q
great measure has depended our peace and
security from all the horrors of civil war.
Where Is found the authority for such APP
polntment! Certainly not in the Constitu-
ton. Upon that subject the Constitution is
the command of the Army and Navy, and by
implication OF law invests him with that
supreme power which is requested, in order TO
employ every necessary means TO the public
security.
In the able and ingenious argument Of this
case, an attack has been made upon tn, con-
Oh ms law, ana the COnstttu-
aonal authority Of the Executive to act in
pursuance OF its letter, rather with 8 view 20
prove that the law does not signify what ;t
plainly means, than to show that there was no
authority TO enact it, As we have NO doubt as
TO the obviously plain Specification of the law,
we VIII consider for moment the value of
the argument with reference to the Constitu-
1onal right to enact il, and the Constitutional
authority of the Executive TO execute It. IT'S
urged against 1t that the Constitution provides
that.
.Ths right Of the people to be secure IN thelr
persons, papers, and effects, against unreasou-
able seaSohes and seizures shall not be vio-
lated, an< no warrants shall issue, bat upon
probable c65se, supported by oath or affirIna-
ton, and particularly describing the place 20
be searched, snd the persons or things to ss
seized"
mo person saall be held to answer for A.
capital, or otherwise infamorfs crime, unless
on a presentmenI Or Indictment of a grand
jury, except In cases arising - the land or
naval forces, or in tie N litia, when in actual
service in time of wET OF public danger; Ror
shall any person be sJh Iact for tss3 same Of
fence to be twice put III jeopardy Of life or
case TO be witness against himself, rsor be de-
prived OF life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law"
If the authority of this statr ~ and the power
of the President In the premirss was mcds 10
depend upon this clause of tte Censtitu ion,
the argument would be conclusive. Neither
the law or the power of the President to act
can be justified by it, but must be Justified from
come other source. AS we read tte Coustits-
ton, the clause referred to is the guaranty
against arrests in time OF peace a.l4 not inS
time of 1rdr
This statute as before observed, doe, not as
sumo to confer upon the President anypower
as commander.in-c chief of the Army OF Navy
in time of war to order the arrest OF suspected
persons, but fully recognizes the existence OF
such power. Its operation is limited to the
cOntin uance OF the war. 1t was also enacted
to afford clear recognition by the legislative
department OF the Government Of the existence
of the power exercised in this case by the Prev
id fnrT ndS-h q thAr ifxyf ,h
rests and to afford fnil and perfect justifica-
ton to all those who acted in pursuance OF
his orders.
While it may not have added to his power,
1t does not subtract from IT,
1t is statute In sid of the exercise of the
powers conferred on the Commander chief
IN time of war, hayfn for its authority all Of
the war power of the Government, which in
cludes all the means necessary for the preser-
walton of the nation.
1t is argued again that 1t is the exercise of
tremendous power" ead ought to be strictly
guarded. The reply rs that this is a sstremeu-
dous REBELLION" and the power for Its suppress
sion ought to be vigorously exercised.
Again, it is said : 1.-THE right of the citizen to
i'm munity from arrest is the most sacred OF
rights, and ought to be scTupulously guarded"
The reply is that the preservation of this
Government is the most sacred Of duties, and
ought to be sacredly performed. The liberty
of the single citizen is precious-the liberty Of
thirty millions, and the pTeseTynt5o7 Of Gorerr-
ment gudrdntying ii, intellectually more so.
All arguments as to the liability Of the abuse
OF SuCQ power rs cl3imeQ Tor the PRESIDENT
utterly fail to satisfy US that the power does
not exist.
1t appears to us, that these views are decis-
i've of the right of Baker TO ne " trial
But when the case is considered III the light
OF the la W having relation to the District of
Columbia where This ollense is charged to have
been committed, the duty OF tide cnart TO give
the benefit OF the Justification furnished by this
statute is demonstrate.
Congress is the exclusive la " m ak.ng power
OF the District for purposes, civil aad criml-
AntnOrl.pH ndgarmIna w al
be the crimes and rnisdemeanors made punish
able therein-to regulate the proofs in accusa-
be the crlme-What shall be its Justification
and what its measnTeof Punishment
In the fourth section of the statute hereto
fore noticed, Il is expressly GecI:I ed that if any
arrest or imprisonment be made under and by
virtue of an order OF the President or under
his auihori:y, proof of such order shall be
complete defence 70 6ny prosecution for such
arrest or imprisonment.
To hold that Congress had not the power to
provide the foregoing jusGf lion would be
denial OF Its legislative sovereignty ever the
district acknowledg that Sovereignty. No
one can doubt the power of Cong rees to abolish
the offence of assault and battery. II So Con
gress certainly has thu pe weT in this District
to determine what shalt constitute it's defence
From these views the conclusion, follows
that the instructions ana ruling OF the Court
below were erroneous and that the defendant
Is entitled to new trial, which is ordered.
In the case OF Stansbury agt. the CORPORATION
of Washington for damages reeei we'd by the
piainilf IN falling into an area N front Of
basement window, in wkichin thecourt below
q verdict was rendered Tor the -defendant the
Judgment of the Court was afirmed:
John .Dugan and ChristopherV. Hogan, who
are confined in the Old Capitol hav wing been
arrested in May last JoY thu military authori-
ties, as stated, for being come ited with the
robbery of Pavmaster Malone of.S70,C COO. about
a year since, and in whose cases writs Of la
bedS corpus were issued a few weeks since,
commanding Mr.. Wood, the superinteE1Sent of
the prison. to prodnc, them before the court,
which writs MIR. Wood answered by appea1-
ing in court with tie writs endorsed by the
President, The within, Hogan Tor, Dugan,l
were arrested and imprisoned by my authox-
ity. The writ of hcteds corpus in this case is
suspended" .Sc., Mr.. Bradleytasked leave to
traverse the proceedings on the grannds that
the return is insufficient. and moved an att5sch-
raent Issue against mir. Wood for bis dieobe-
dsenee of the writ OF the court.
mr. Bradley proceeded tic argue that under
ne act of March ;, iS63,it is the duty aS the
Secretaries OF W ar and SIase- to report 10 the
Judges OF the United Stat3s courts. the names
1t all nersons who are Within the iSrisdictinn