The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1867-07-13
ARBITRARY ARRESTS.
The Case Of Madison 7. johnson.
Action Of Trespass Against ].
Russell Jones and Others.
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF ILLINOIS.
Decision in Favor efthe Plaintiff.
Congressional Action Declared
a@ Unconstitutional.
&C., &C., &c.
Decision in Favor efthe Plaintiff.
MADISON Y. JOHNSON VS.. J. =. JONES EFT A

MADISON Y. JOHNSON VS.. J. 4. JONES EFT AL.
NJ. Y. johnson, ESQ.,, pro Sc.
Hon. c. Beckwith for the defendants in
error.
Mr.. Justice Lawrence delivered the opin-
ion of the court. r..
This was an act of trespass brought by
Madison Y. johnson against j. Russell
Jones, Elihu B. Washburne, John G. Hop
kins, Oliver P. Hopkins and Bradner Smith.
The declaration alleges that on the 18th
day of August, 1862, in the county, of 10
Daviess, and state of Illinois, the defendants,
with force and violence, assaulted and arrest
ed the plaintiff, and carried him on board
the railway cars; that they transported him
by the cars to Chicago, where they restrain
ed him of his liberty for the space of two
days; that they then conveyed him by force
to the city of New York; that he was then
imprisoned in Fort Lafayette for the space
of two months that he was then taken to
Fort Delaware, in the state of Delaware.
where he was imprisoned for the further
space of three months, when he was set at
liberty without trial or examination, or any
offence being charged against him.
All the defendants pleaded not guilty.
The defendants Jones, Hawkins and Hop
kins, also fled special pleas, in which they
set up the then existence of the rebellion,
and aver that the plaintiff was an active
member of disloyal secret society known
as the knights of the Golden Circle )" that
this society was in league aud sympathy
with the rebels, and was a cooperating
branch of the rebellion in the northern states,
and plotting with the rebels for the overthrow
of the government and that said plaintiff
was deply engaged in aiding said society in
their reasonable purposes, and was In fact
levying war against the United States. The
pleas further aver that the defendant Jones
was, at that time, United States marshal for
the northern district of Illinois, and that said
defendants Hawkins and Hopkins were his
deputies; that as such marshal he was order
ed by the President of the United States to
arrest said plaintiff as a measure proper for
the suppression of the rebellion, and convey
him to Fort Lafayette, and that he did sc
arrest him, and convey him to said fort in a
comfortable manner, and there delivered
him to the custody of the officer in command
of said fort, after which time the plaintiff was
not in the custody of the defendant.
Another plea sets up the issuance of the
presidents proclamation of July 4, 1862
calling for 800 900 volunteers, and avows
that the plaintiff was actively engaged il
discouraging and preventing volunteering.
To these special pleas the plaintiff demu
rred.. The demurrer was overruled, and the
plaintiff abiding by it, the court rendered
final judgment ON the demurrer in favor 0
the defendants who pleaded specially. Tn,
court then,on motion of those defendants whit
had only pleaded not guilty, and against tn,
objection of the plaintiff impaneled jury t,
try the issue made by that plea, and tn
plaintiff offering no evidence verdict AM
judgment were given for those defendants
The plaintiff has brought the record to thi
court. {
1t win be observed that when the arrest wa
made for which this suit was brought, there ha
been no general suspension of the writ g
habeas corpus. We are not therefore, unde
the necessity of considering the effect of
suspension of that writ, upon the right of tn
government to make military arrests-a sui
ject upon which eminent jurists have widel
differed. This plaintiff was arrested ON tn
28th of August, 1862. The first proclama
ton Of the president, applicable to the stat
of Illinois, and to all persons anywhere a,
rested by the military authorities, was issue
Sept. "a, 1862. Doubts having been ez
pressed as to the power of the president t
suspend the writ without the authorization @
congress, that body, ON the Sd of March, 1856
passed an act authorizing the president to sus
spend it whenever, in his judgment, the pub
lie safety should require it. Acting unde
this authority, the president issued his secon,
proclamation of the 18th September, 1868
We refer to these historical facts merely 70
the purpose of showing that the presen
case must be .adjudged without reference t
the question Of what power the president ha
to make arrests, during the late rebellion
after the writ had been suspended. g
Do these pleas as above set forth, justif
the alleged trespass?
That the president of the United State
has the rightful power, IN time Of peace, t
cause marshal to arrest citizen of MI
nois, without process, and withourany charg
OF crime legally preferred, and convey hin
to distant state, and there imprison hin
without judicial writ or warrant in militar-
fortress, is proposition which no one woul;
have the hardihood to assert. That sue
power, in q season Of peace, cannot be safel
intrusted 70 any government, by peopl