Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-05-11

1eve it viii greatly benefit East
Tennesse and in benefting that por-
ton of our State benefit Us. We have
nothing to do with the controversy
between this company and a portion
Of the Alabama presss and we only
speak Of the road as it presents itseftO
US as a great public work Of immense
benefit to the wholeS Southern country.
JOHN Mitchell, in his war with des-
potism, reminds US Of the country
pumpkin who gave as an excuse for kill
ling the anaconda found in the show,
that he "madeita rule to go for snakes
wherever he found 'em." The per-
secutions Of the British Government
toward the Irish have engendered in
the bosom Of John Mitchell an uncon-
querable hatred for despotism, and he
goes for tyrants whether he finds them
in Europe or America. In June, 1866,
Mr.. Mitchell was employed by Ben.
Wood, to write for the New York
NeiCS. His Ingenious, dignifed and
polished criticisms upon the laWles5-
ness of the bold, bad men, who then,
as now, bore rule, were distasteful 10
royalty and loyalty, and hence a mill
itsTy mob, acting under the orders Of
General Dix, broke into the editorial
rooms Of the Ne0s, Kidnapped Mr..
Mitchell, and ne was speedily borne
to one Of those living tOmbs in a case
ment in Fortress Monroe, in which so
many had suffered for fidelity
10 their county, its cOnFtitu-
ton and laws For this out
rage upon his rights, Mr.. Mitchell has
instituted suit against General Dix
and alleges that he was UnlaWfully
arrested and transported beyond the
limits of the State Of New York to
Fortress Monroe, in the State Of Vr-
ginia, and there imprisoned four
months and sixteen days by defend
ant. The plaintiff was not on the 18th
Of June, 1860, or at any other time, in
the military or naval service Of the
United States, or in the militia or ac-
tive service in the time of war Or pub.
lie danger. The plaintiff was never
presented by, nor was ever an indicl-
ment found against him by a grand
jury, was never charged with any Of
tense or crime against the laws Of the
United States, or any Of them. His
right to a public and speedy trial by
jury vas denied. He was never in
formed of the nature and cause Of the
accusations against him, was never
confronted with witnesses, or had
compulsory process for Obtaing their
presence in his favor, and ives de-
prived of the benefit OF counsel. The
case is attracting much i~nterestin New
York. The counsel of Mr.. Mitchell, in
a long and able argument, Showed
that by the Constitution of the State
Of New York it is provided that no
person shall be held, and the statutes
enact that every person who shall,
without lawful authority, forcibly
seize aud cOnfne another, ETC., with
intent to cause such other person to-
be sent out Of the State against his
viii, etc, shall, upon conviction, be
punished by Imprisonment, ETC., not
exceeding ten years. The provisions
o fine State Constitution and the sta
tutes in pursuance thereof, is the su-
preme law of the case at bar, unless
there is some provision in the Con-
]stituti0n Of the United States which
Overrides the State Constitution and
law Of The State upon the very ques-
ton OF fJrcibIe and fraudulent depor-
tatiOn Of a citizen from one State to
another. There is mo such antago-
nism between the two Constitutions
on this subject, but they are in per
feet and complete harmony. Mr..
MitchePs counsel further argues that
at the time OF arrest the war had
ended, that New York was not in in
~surrecti0n, and was not one of the
States specified in the Presidents
proclamation. Besides, the existence
of a state Of war is not to be deter
mined alone by a proclamation Of the
President, but like any other general
political fact is the subject Of judicial
c~Ognizance. 1t is also argued that
neither the President or Congress had
the legal and constitutional authority
to make such arrests and imprisOn-
ments, and that a mere military ap-
pOintee Of the President and Congress
cannot do that which the creator
cannot legally and constitution
ally do-nullify and set at de-
fance the most solemn guaran-
tees of personal liberty contained
in the fifth and sixth amendments to
the Constitution. Although the re-
dress which Mr.. Mitchell claims at
the hands of the courts Of his country {
are just, he viii not succeed in his -ef- ]
forts to punish the usurpers. By an
arbitrary arrest, without sworn a
rant or other due process Of Law, Mr.. I
Mitchell was seized by a laWless mob +,
and cast into a foul and most loath-
some prison. The despots in Eng ]
land had some "color Of author ?
when they tried, convicted, /
and sentenced John Mitchell to life l
time Of imprisonment. But the ty- {
rants Of America were guilty Of a ;
crime when, without present J
nent or indictment by a grand jury, 4
be was arrested without due process a
II law, denied a speedy trial, and the a
Of the accusations and witness =
g against him, and hustled OFF into !
as if ne were a dog, instead of s
freeman. The Constitution says:
No person shall be deprived Of life,
liberty property without due process
flaw.v "The accused shall enjoy the J.