Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1867-10-01

1 L
his heart or purpose. So thousands have in
tended to accept these military bills without
having thought Of this difficulty They were
and are simply not informed When informed
they will reject the crime with as much horror
as do. Against all these bring no charge
My position is based on knowledge and intent
Then. repeat, why this Indignation? The
answer il as plain as the truth OF my position.
There are many, alas too many, who know the
military bills are unconstitutional, and who yet
have determined on some pretext to take the
vote for the bills, and 'let conscience 60 to the
| devil. -
| 1t is high time this well-established distinc-
ton was understood. So far from an officer be-
ing protected because the courts have not set
aside certain acts, the courts themselves could
not furnish protection by positively Sustaining
the acts which amend the Constitution. And
such has been expressly decided and repeatedly
decided to be the law in England, where the
Constitution is not written. 1t will be more
emphatically the law in America where the
Constitution is plainly written. Corruption for
time may prevent the application of the rule,
and my feeble voice, amid this thunderstorm of
passion, may not be needed nor heard But
storms cannot last always and | sublimely and
proudly proclaim, that the time will come when
all the world will know that the Constitution is
the only supreme ruler in America; and that
neither President nor Congress, nor courts nor
bayonets can protect themselves, or protect
others from accountability for violations of the
plain, unmistakle commands of that Constitu-
ton. Without this glorious truth Constitutions
and rights would always be the mere creatures
OF bad, designing men. Passion and the rabble
may cruelty now, but this grand deliverer of
the oppressed will one day, yea, at an early day,
come. and come with joy to the faithful, and in
terrible wrath to all wicked transgressors
They feel guilty. They have many of them,
but recently consented to be guilty, and their
consciences are still bleeding from the stab, and
are very sore. Inform good man of his error
and he will love you inform an honest man and
he will thank you; but inform guilty man and
he will hate you. The guilty are always sus-
picious, generally excitable, and very rarely
dangerous. There are some, also, who are
troubled. They do not positively know and ad-
NIT that these bills are unconstitutional, and
various pretexts or excuses are resorted to to
satisfy their conscences, which are generally
easily satisfied when willing to be satisfied
With such, excuses become reasons, and pre-
texts are accepted as arguments.
Ut course rejecting men must admit there
can be no justifable excuse for wilful perjury
but all men are not rejecting, and it is impor-
tant to know some of the excuses offered as JUS
tihable reasons for supporting these military
bills under an oath to support the Constitution.
l. The first great excuse offered as reason
is, that the bills have not been declared uncon-
stitutional by the courts This excuse is we'll
calculated to mislead There are cases in which
certain ministerial and executive officers are
bound to execute orders until the courts set
aside the authority on which the orders are
based. But this rule applies only to officers
of4,oo Il, how
ders. The responsibility is with their superiors
who issue the orders. They are not to judge of
the legality of these orders. That was done, or
presumed to have been done, before the orders
were issued. The rule with the officer in such
case, is not to judge but to obey. He has no
will-no discretion. This is why the rule ap-
plies only to executive and ministerial officers.
All other officers have a right to judge and are
bound to judge honestly and decide conscienti-
ousy. Sometimes even ministerial or execu-
tive officer must judge according to the issue
presented of his situation. When a bill is pre-
sented to the President for his approval, he is
a Judge, and if he thinks it is unconstitutional
he is perjured if he does not veto it-if he ap-
proves it.
One of our Presidents declared he could not
approve bill which he believed was unconsti-
tutional without surrendering all claim to the
respect of honorable men-all confidence on the
part of the people-all selfrespect-all regard
for moral and religious obligations Yet, if
Congress passed the bill, Notwithstanding his
objections, then it was not only no crime, no
wrong, but his duty to execute it. Why? Be
cause in the latter case he was only executing
and not approving or deciding. But when the
courts decide such bill to be unconstitutional,
then he cannot execute it, because the power
provided by the Constitution has decided that
Congress erred in overruling the objections of
the President But this rule has a limit even
in case of executive and ministerial officers. 1t
applies to cases of doubtful construction under
the Constitution. Congress by no vote can give
vitality to an act which the Constitution says
shall not be passed. And no President can be
excused for executing such an act. lfeyery act
of Congress is binding until set aside by the
court, Congress may make the most unconstitu-
tional act the most binding by abolishing both
the President and the Courts which they have
exactly done, so far as relates to the military
bills
So as to ministerial officers the rule has a
limit IF the Sheriff execute man who has
been sentenced by judge he is guilty of no
crime, though the judge mistook the law in
passing the sentence But if the Sheriff exc
cutes man sentenced by one who was not
judge-legally judge-the Sheriff is guilty of
murder, though the man executed may have
been guilty. If any officer executes a citizen
by order Of military commission, such officer
is guilty of murder Why? Because the Con-
stitution says every citizen shall be presented
by grand jury, and tried by an impartial jury,
and no person on this continent can confer any
power to execute any citizen who has not been
so tried. Otherwise there would be power
greater than the Constitution, which is absurd.
This is why the officers who executed the writs
of the Star Chamber Courts, and obeyed the
orders Of King Charles [, were afterwards sued
and indicted and made responsible and pun
ished. No King, or court or Congress or pres
ident, or other official power can confer author
ity, in direct conflict with the positive COM
mands of the Constitution. All who seek to
confer such authority are criminals all who
execute such authority are criminals, and no
person can release or forgive the crime.
But the rule referred to as binding on exc
cutive and ministerial officers does not apply to
citizens or voters. A voter obeys no orders
executes no orders. He must exercise his
judgment and vote according to his own honest
convictions. If he votes contrary to his con-
victions he violates his conscience, and if he
votes under oath and contrary to that oath he
is guilty of false swearing or perjury. He is
not sworn to support an act of Congress until
the courts set it aside, he is sworn to support
the Constitution, and if he supports an act
which, In his opinion, is contrary to the Con-
stitution, his oath is broken He being his
own judge, his oath is broken, and ''his con-
science given to the DEVIL" as Stevens advised.
2. But another pretext offered is, that these
States are in an anomalous condition and the
Constitution does not apply to them Well, if