Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1867-03-08
which the fundamental law forhids,

our arms III crushing the Opp0Sltlnn which
was made in some Of the States to the exc
cution Of the Federal laws, reduced those
States and all their people-the innocent as
well as the guilty--to the condition of vas
salage, and gave us power over them which
| the Constitution does not bestow, or define,
or limit No fallacy can be more transpar-
ent than this. Our victories subjected the
insurgents to legal obedience, not to the yoke
of an arbitrary despotism. When an abso-
lutte sovereign reduces his rebe!ious subjects,
he may deal with them according to his
pleasure, because he had that power before.
But when limited monarch puts down an
insurrection, he must still govern according
to law IF an instruction should take place
in one of our States against the authority of
the state Government. and end in the over
throw of those who planned it, would that
take away the rights of all the people of the
counties where it was favored by part or a
majority Of the population =? Could they
for such reason, be wholly outlawed and
/ deprived Of their representation in the Legis-
lature? I have always contended that the
Government Of the United States was SOW
reign within its constitutional sphere; that
it executed it's laws, like the States them
selves, by applying its coercive power direct
ly to individuals; and that it could put down
Instruction with the same effect as a State,
and no other The opposite doctrine is the
worst heresy Of those who advocated seces-
sion, and cannot be agreed to without admit
ting that heresy to be right
Invasion, instruction, rebellion, and do
mestic violence were anticipated when the
Government was framed, and the means OF
repelling and suppressing them were wisely
provided for in the Constitution; but it was
not thought necessary to declare that the
States in which they might occur should be
expelled from the Union. Rebellions, which
were invariably suppressed, occurred prior
to that out Of which these questions grow
but the States continued to exist and the
Union remained unbroken. In Massachu-
sets, in Pennsylvania, in Rhode Island, and
in New York, at different periods in our his
tory, violent and armed opposition to the
United States was carried on; but the rela-
tons of those States with the Federal Gov
eminent were not supposed to be interrupted
or changed thereby, after the rebelious por-
tons Of their population were defeated and
put down. It is true that ID these earlier
cases there was no formal expression of 9
determination to withdraw from the Union
but it is also true that in the Southern
States the ordinances Of secession were treated
by all the friends Of the Union as mere null
lities, and are now acknowledged to be sc
by the States themselves. IF we admit that
they had any force or validity, or that they
did in fact take the States in which they were
passed out of the Union, we sweep from IN
der our feet all the grounds upon which We
stand in justifying the use Of Federal force
to maintain the integrity Of the Govern
ment
This is bill passed by Congress in time
Of peace. There is not in any one of tho
States brought under its operation either wal
or Instruction. The laws Of the States ano
of the Federal Government are all in undis
turbed and harmonious operation. The
courts, State and Federal, are open, and il
the full exercise Of their proper authority
Over every State comprised in these five
military districts, life, liberty and property
are secured by State laws and Federal laws,
and the National Constitution is everywhere
in force and everywhere obeyed. What
then, is the ground on which this bill pro
ceeds? The title of the bill announces thai
it is intended for the moro efficient govern
ment" of these ten States. 1t is reclted b.
way Of preamble that no legal State Govern
ments, 'nor adequate protection for life o.
property" exist in those States, and tina
peace and good order should be thus EN-
forced. The first thing which arrests atten
ton upon these recitals, which prepare th'
way for martial law, is this-that the onl,
foundation upon which martial law can eSls
under our form Of government is not statet
or so much as pretended. Actual war, for
eign invasion, domestic instruction
Of these appear; and none Of these IL fact ex
ist 1t is not even recited that any sort 0
war or Instruction is threatened. Let u
pause here to consider, upon this question Q
constitutional law and the power Of Con
gress, a recent decision Of the Supreme Cour
Of the United States in &c porte Milligan
I will first quote from the opinion Of Tx
majority of the Court: "Nlartial law canno
arise from threatened invasion. The ne
cessity must be actual and present, the inya
sion real, such as effectually closes the court
and deposes the civil administration. w
see that martial law comes in only when &C
tual war closes the courts and deposes tht
civil authority; but this bill, in time Q
peace, makes martial law operate as though
we were in actual war, and becomes th
cause, instead of the consequence of the abro
cation Of civil authority. One more quota
tion 1T follows from what has been sal,
on this subject that there are occasions whcl
martial law can be properly applied. If IL
foreign invasion or civil war the courts ar
actually closed, and it is impossible to ad
minister criminal justice according to law
then, On the theatre of active military opera
tons, where war really prevails, there is
necessity to furnish substitute for the clvl
authority, thus overthrown, to preserve tn
safety Of the army and society and as n'
power is left but the military, it is allowed
to govern by martial rule until the laws cal
have their free course.
now quote from the opinion of the mi
nority OF the Court, delivered by Chic
Lustico Chasa s.Wn NV no means asSer