Maryland free press., 1866-06-21

to Judge Ellsworth, lived William Rawle of Penn
sylvania. He has published u work upon the |
principles OF our constitution, which reflected |
and controlled the sentiments of large part if not
majority Of the pspplc of the whole country.-I
Ihis book became standard text book. On page |
296 Mr. Rawle plainly asserts the right of State
10 stc,de al ciH He says: cit depends on the
State ITSELF whether it will continue a member
of the Union. To deny this right would be in
consistent with the principle of ofselEgovernmept"
Again on page 29T he says, "the States then may
wholly withdraw from the Union" and subse- |
quently the peaceful mode of secession and the
consequences thereof are clearly pointed out.
Mr. Rawle may have been wrong in his theory |
others-Mr. Bayard and Judge Story in their seve-
raj treatises on the same subject take the opposite
view. Unfortunately Mr.. Davis and those who
acted with him adopted that of Mr.. Rawle and
for which he now languishes, unhappy man, in
prison, in actual danger of his life. But who was
William Xavier lie was one ofthe most eminent
| lawyers of his day; and besides was for many
years General Washingtons U. S. Attorney for
Pennsylvania. Numerous other authorities, hard
ly less imposing, might be cited for the same doc
trine but we confine ourselves to those referred
to, because of the peculiar official relations which
they bore to the general government. Mr.. Davis
is charged with a feloneous offence. As a plea to
| vindicate himself he refers to two Presidens-to
q Chief Justice, and to an Attorney of the United
States and to the solemn acts oftwo of the origi-
| nal sovereign States, who instructed him that he
might commit the act without crime fl Mr.. JEFF
ferson were now President-if Judge Ellsworth
were now Chief Justice, and Mr.. Rawle were now
the U. 5. Attorney, would it be possible to con-
vict Mr.. Davis of felony in advocating secession
Our government was precisely the same when
| Mr.. Davis withdrew with his State from the
Union, as it was when it was administered by
| the ilustrious men now referred to-yet at one
period it was a crime to advocate secession, at
the other it was but the exercise of asupposed
constitutional right.
D..ts ho Al. z.lxA
| to have known better, and that ignorance of the
law is no. excuse for its violation. This answer
may be simply met, by asking whether any young
man however great his abilities, who, in forming
in early life, his political opinions, could be held
criminal for adopting, as the basis of his creed,
the views of two Presidents, Chief Justice and
a U. S. Attorney, the first three having been
largely instrumental in forming the government
| whose principles they have undertaken to eX-
pound Bring this matter home to our every
day affairs. Could it be possible to convict any
man, high or low, in any of our State courts, of
a criminal intent, under similar circumstances
Not TO give to the writings of Judge Ellsworth
or Mr.: Rawlc upon this subject the force Of judi
cial authority, still they are entitled to great
| weight in forming and controlling the judicial
an Legislative minds of the country. In Burr's
case, Chief Justice Marshall says that principles
laiu down by legal writer's, "are not lightly to
he rejected In speaking of books and treatiscs
upon law, especially referring TO those upon the
principles ofgovernment, and questions arising
there:rom, such as treason, &C. he adds "books
are III the hands of every student, and legal op n
| ions are formed upon them, and those opinions
are afterwards carried to the bar, the bench and
the Legislature" Especially is this true, in q
government of public sentiment like ours.
1t may be here properly added, that if there
were just and sufficient grounds to warrant Mr..
Davis in adopting the doctrines ofseccssion clear
ly no one can blame him for seeking to enforce
them by any means in his power. Under the
peculiar form Of our government there was no
civil tribunal to which could be referred the So
luton OF this question. Iti was II new question
which, in magnitude and Importance loOii,ed u
bove the powers of the urts and Congress. 1t
sn undevclopcd claim Of right which, though it
reposcd an embryo in the womb of the constt
ton, moi and power!ess, but vital was le
maturlng,to become one OF the most imptr ant liv-
ing issues that ever agit,cd the political orld.-
When at length it WITS brought forth, and sought
to assume the powers which were claimed to he
long to it,a great reality was presented which had
to be met. Whether this legitimate and gigantic
offspring Of State sovereignty should have been
treated us an angel with political blessings on
its wings ''bringing glad tidings OF great joy -
tr whether like the prince of demons, il came
t. spread discurd i'll the system ofan ndissOlublc
Union, itmattcrs moi, it has ,cev, fatal blow.
W hen tie attempt was made to cnforca the
right Of secession, it was for tie States who re-
mainei in the Union, to ei her acquiesce in the
NttChilli vi W ItSlSt IL iN an uppCtl u
tribunal 10 which the question could he referred
the tribunal of arms. The latter alternative
was chosen, and long and bloody war followed.
The result is known, and the question, for the
first time, is settled by arms that State cannot
pcaceabIy withdraw from the Union. In the Ian
guagc of General Grant, the questions which
Ii ave heretofore divided the sentiments Of the peo-
pie Of the two sectionS-slavcry and States
right, or the right of a State to secede from the
Cnion-they regard as having been settled for
ever by the highest ttribunal-Lrms-tha man can
resort to-
Gen. Grant thus treats the question up to the
end of the war, as unsettled, Wnd termined for if
t were not, why invoke the highest tribunal to
t settle il forcver2'
Mr. Cragin, leading M m 'cr of Congress oi
the Rcpubcan school also regards the question
as more MdH unSctilci: for he has introduced
n resolution to amend the constitution thai
hereafter every Stale in the Union, ''slia forever
form part of the United States, and shall not,
under any circumstances have any right TO with
draw tlcrcfrom." And what does Mr.. Lawrence
of Ohio ask? That trial OF Mr. Davis may ht
had, ''that the question may be judically settled,
finally and forever, thlt no State, ofits own will
has the right to rcnounce It's place in the tnon.
And Mr. Nye of L. 5. Senate, asks that Mr.. Da-
: Wis may be hung because he took different side
Ola new and unsettled question from that taken
by himself
The power or right OF secession is so far rccog
nized by each of these gentlemen, that it be-
comes necessary 10 change the constitution on the
ono hand and 10 invoke n decision of the Supreme
court on the other, to Danish its existence from
our political system. Can il be possible TO advo-
cate II right thus involved, could be criminal p
Does the history of criminal jurisprudence, OIL
the rules of justice OF morals, furnish example
of the punishment of an individual for acts which
If not positively lawful, are yet SO dimly defined
as illegal, that some new legislation or decision
of the courts is necessary to bring them within
al. Il.