Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1865-07-11

We have no doubt that President Johnson was
acting in the conscientious discharge OF what he
believed to be his duty in directing General Han
cock to refuse 10 obey the writ OF habeas corpus
issued by Judge Wylie in the case of Mrs Sur
raft He has shown his respect for the Constitu-
ton during his whole official life, and we must
therefore suppose that in this instance he was
acting within the limits of what he conceived to
be rightiul authority. We cannot, however, but re-
.ret that he should have interposed in this case
aud that regret s chiefly that he should have as
serted u privilege TO exercise power with which
We do not believe him to be invested The act
Of March 3, 1863. only authorized the President
to suspend the privilege OF tho writ during the
existence OF the rebellion. That Mr.. Lincoln
mad douts as TO his right u suspend the writ
without such authorization is shown IN the fact
that he supplemented his proclamation of Sept
"a, 1862. suspending the writ, with one issued
Sept. Is, 1863, IN which he referred to the act of
March 3, of ihat year. as his warrant for
pending il. That Congress supposed he could
not suspend il without its sanction was shown by
the passage OF the act Ii Is, therefore, At
least doubtful whether the President can suspend
without being authorized to do SO by Congress
Chief Justice fancy. in the case of Merryman,
at Baltimore in 1861, explicitly denied his au-
thority to suspend. President Johnson. there
fore, If acting under the law OF March 3,
1863, was of course limited by its pro-
visions, and these, as we have seen, re-
strcted the suspension to the existence OF the
rebellion. His order to Gen. Hancock indirectly
asserts that he was acting under the proclama-
ton Of President Lincoln of September. 1863.
That proclamation limits the suspension TO the
existence of the rebellion, 'or until IL should be
modified or revoked by subsequent proclama-
ton 10 be issued by the President" Ii is much
more reasonable TO suppose that this provision
was intended TO protect the public Liberties by
providing for revocation prior TO the close of
the rebellion, if the President deemed it compat-
IDLE with the public safety than that il was
meant To extend beyond the contingency in
which the suspension vas authorized by the Con
sttution.
Ii the Presijen; may assume that the suspen-
sion continues until the proclamation OF Septem.
Der, 1853. is revoked, the law of Congress and
the constitutional provision relating 10 the sus-
pension OF the writ are OF no effect III, latter
is imperative, 1t says the privilege of the writ
shall not be suspended unless when in cases OF
rebellion or invasion the public safety NAV re-
quire it," The President canno, during a rebel
lion suspend it by proclamation aud provide that
the suspension shall continue until be or his sue
cessOr shall formally revoke it by another pro
camaton though the circumstances have ceased
to exist under which the authority TO suspend il
granted BY the Constitution. What assurances
tude of President Johnsons intentions that he
will revoke the proclamation of September 1863.
during his administration And what but the
same assurance, should he not revoke it, have
we that his successor willi The constitution did
not intend that the most sacred rights of citizen
ship should depend upon the purposes OF a single
individual, however Just and patriotic he or they
might be We do not doubt that N denying re
pTieve to Mrs. Surratt. and in directing that the
order of Judge Wylie, should be disobeyed. be
did wha, he thought to be his duty, and il gave
him pain to refuse elemeney, and be regretted TO
come into collision with the judicial authority.
This, however, awaited nothing in preserving to
her who stood on the edge of the scaffold the
sound constitutional privilege which, whether she
was innocent or guilty, the fundamental law of
our land guaranteed 10 her IN her awful ex-
tremty.
By the law of Congress under which the Pro
clamation Of September, 1863, was issued; BY
the Proclamation itself; and by that higher law,
under which both Congress and the President
were alone authorized TO act,-the privilege OF
the writ OF habeas corpus as clearly and fully
attaches TO every citizen in this nation to-day as
II there had been 70 suspensions of il by those
acts Let Us have done with the fiction that the
country j. still in a state OF war. So far as the
Northern States are concerned. il has been purely
a fiction from the first. They were At war bot
not II sAI, Az every process AAa Appiance OF
law moved without obstruction TO their legiti-
mate end unless they were driven from their
course by the refusal OF military to obey civil
authority They are no longer at war, and the
pre,ense for continuing Interference by the mill
tarv with the orders OF our Courts has passed
II the President deems that the suspension Of
the wit will continue until the Proclamation of
September. 1853 is formally revoked. he cannot
TOO soon make the revocation, and thus beyond
perAdventure place il beyond ms power to inter
fere with the action OF our Judges -Chicago
Times