Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-03-05
responsibility of making it more cruel or


Several provisions, dictated by the hu-
Imanity of Congress, have been inserted in
the bill apparently to restrain the powered
the cOmmanding officer, batit seemslto me
that they are of no avail for that purpose.
The fourth section provides: First, that
trials shall not be unnecessarily delayed.
But l think / have shown that the power
lis given to punish without trial, and if so,
this pronosition is practically imperative.
Cruel or unusual punishments are not to
be inflicted; but who is to decide what is
cruel and unusual? The words have ac-
quired legal meaning by long use in the
courts. Can it be expected that military
officers will understand II, and follow rule
in Language so pn nrely technical and9not
pertaining IN the'least degree to their pro-
fession2 If not, then such officer may de-
fine cruelty according to his own temper;
and if not usual, he will make it usual.
Corporeal punishment the gag, the ball and
chain, and other almost insupportable
forms of torture, invented for military pun
ishment, will be within the range of choice.
| The sentence of commission is not to be
executed without approval by the COM
mander, If it affects life or liberty, and a
sentence of death must be approved by the
President. This -appliesst to casesfa which
there has been a trial and sentence. l take
It to be clear under the bill, that the mill
tary commander may condemn to death,
without even the form of trial by military
commission, so that the life of the con-
demned may depend upon the will of two
men instead of one.
/ 1t is plain that the authority here given
to the military officer amounts to absolute
despOtism; but to mskeeit still more unen-
durable, the bill provides that it may be
delegated to as many subordinates as he
chooses to appoint, for it declares he shall
t'punish or cause to be punished" Such a
power has not been welded by s monarch
in England for more than five hunured
years; in all that time, no people who
speak the English language have borne
such servitude. 1t reduces the whole pop
ulati1n yof the ten States salf persons of
every color, sex and condition, and every
stranger Swithin their alimits-=to the most
ahject and degrading slavery. No master
ever had a control so ABSOLUTE over his
slaves as this bill gives to the military of
hcers over both white and cOlOred persons.
1t may be answered to this, that the of
hcers of the army are too magnanimous,
just and humane to Oppress and trample
upon subjugated people. l do not doubt
that the army officers are as well entitled
to this confidence as any other class of
men, but the history of the world has been
written in vain if it does not teach Us, that
unrestrainedS authority can never be safely
trusted in human hands. 1t is almost sure
to be more or less abused under any circum-
stances, and it has always resulted in gross
tyranny where rulers are strangers to
their subjects, and come among them as
the representatives of distant power, and
more especially when the power that sends
them is unfriendly.
Governments closely resembling that
here proposed have been fully tried in
Hungary and Poland, and the suffering en-
dufedsby those people reused thesympathy
of the entire world. 1t was tried in Ire-
land, aud though first tempered by the
principles of English law, it gave birth to
cruelties so atrocious that they are never
fecounted without jnst-indignatiOn. The
French, Convention armed its deputies with
this powers aud sent them to the Southern
departments of the Republic. The massa-
ores murders and other atrocities which
they scommitted show what the passions of
tire Sabfest men, in the most civilized So
ciety, will attempt to do when wholly un-
restrained by lawsHATga asA saAaaIoHT
The men of our race, in every age, have
struggled to tie up the hands of their Gov
iernments, and keep them within the law,
because their own experience of all man
Kind taught them; that rulers could. not be
relied .on to concede those rights which
they were not legally bound to respect
The head of great empire has sometimes
governed with mild and paternal sway;
butthe Kindness of am irresponsible agent
never yields what law does not extOrt.-
Between suehsa master andrthepeople sub
jeeted to his domination, there can be noth-s
ing but enmity. He Furnishes them if
they resist his authority, and if they sub
init to it he hates, them for their servility.
! come now teaqdestieH which is, if pos
stble, still more important. Have we the
power to establish and carry into eXecu-s
ttoIi a measure like5this p. [ answer, GER
1tainly not. If we derive our authority
from the Constitution, and if I'VE are bound
by the Limitations which it imposes, the
proposition is perfectly clear that no
branch of the Federal government, execu-
tive, legislative or judicial, can have any
just powers except those which it. derives
thfoughand exercises under the organic
law Of the Onion. Outside of the Constf-
tuition we have no legal authority more
than private citizens, and in tive have only
so much as that instrument gives us. This
broad principle limits all ourEfunctions and
applies to all subjects. 1t protects not only
within the Union, but shields every human
being who comes, gOr is brough hit under our
.sszks3 sss&sss asssA
We have no right to do in any one place
more than in anot6 er, that which the Con-
FstitutiOn says we shall not do at all. IT.
therefore, the Southern States were in truth
out of the Unions>we could not treat their
people in manner which the fundamental
law forbids. Some people assume that the
success of our arms in crushing the oppo-
sition which was made in some States to
the execution of the Federal laws, reduced
those States and all their peOple-the inno-
cent as well as the guifty-to a condition
them which the Constitution does not be-
stow, or define, 5or limit Mo- fallacy can
be more transp parent than, this Our YietO5
ries subjected the Insurgents to legal Obe-
dience. not to the yoke of anarbitrary des-
p0tisni When an absolut sovereign re-
duces his rebellious subjects, he may deal
with them according to his pleasure, be-
cause he had that poWe before; but when
a limited monarch puts down rebellion,
ne must govern according to law. If an
Iinsurfeetion should take place in one~of
our States against the authority of the State
Government, and end In the overthrow of
thosewhop planned itS would itstake away
the rights of all the people of the counties
where itsWas favored by a part or major
.ity of-the population 2 Could they, for such
a reason be wholly outlawed and deprived
of their representation in the Legislature?
i have always contended that the Gov
ernment of the United States was sover-
eign within its constitutional sphere-that
it texecuted its laws like the, States them
Eselves, by employing its coercive powers
directly to individuals, and that it could
put down insurrection, with the same effect
as State. The opposite doctrine is the
" Orst aheresy of those who advocate seces-
sion, and cannot be agreed to without adj
mitting that, heresy to be right,z lnvasions
insurrection, rebellion and domestic vio-
lehce We're anticipated when the Govern
ment was framed, and the means of re-
Epelling and suppressing them were wisely
provided tor 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 sup
pressed, occurred prior to that ont of which
these questions grew, but the States con-
tinued to exist and the Union remained un-
broken, In Massachusetts, in PennsYlva-
MIA, in Rhode Island, and in New York, at
al Anrarlt ne rinds in on histnrv violent nd