Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1898-04-30
GENERAL JACKSON.
Dla He Violate the Constitution by Pro-
claiming Martial Law at New
Orleans.
Written for the independently
BY W. q.

To those who enjoyed the conf
dcnce of Gen. Jackson, it is known
that no event of his whole life gave
him more concern than the charge,
so often made against him, that in
proclniming martial law at New Or
leans, he had violated the constitu-
tiOn Of his country. This charge
gave him increased pain, from the
fact that all his friends end staunch-
est supporters admitted the viola.
tion OF the constitution, but justi-
fed it on the plea Of necessity. Liv-
ingston, Grundy and Ingersoll-
men of note-had all written and
published able defences of the con-
duct OF Gen. jackson; still they
had given no quiet to his mind.
The question Of the remission of the
fine imposed by Judge Hall, being
before Congress, it had elected all
the virulence of his opponents, all
the acumen of his friends still the
defence was not satisfactory to the
General, who said, "He didn't know
how it was that man in saving his
country c4uld violate its constitu-
tion by doing So"
II was when the debate was draw
ing to close that, amid the various
competitors for the speakers ear, it
was awarded to Judge Douglas, of
Ill. He was warm advocate for
remitting the fne, and commenced
his speech with views so new, that
he at once rivited upon himself the
attention Of the whole House. The
chief points made by him were as
follows;
He denied that Gen. jackson had
at Now Orleans violated either the
law or the constitution. He main
taiued that The only question was
did the necessity for proclainiUg
mar ial law exist? II it did, it WAS
no violation OF the constitution to
proclaim it, and that it did exist,
was admitted by the Governor and
Legislature of Louisiana, the
courts, the whole population of New
Orleans, as also by Judge Hall him,
self TWAS the necessity. he argu.
ed, which made the act legal and
constitutional, ard whieh but for it
would have been o crime. Thus, it
is unlawful to take the life of az
other; still, suppose traveller on
highway beset by robber, who
with uplifted arm and cleaning
knife, is about to strike, and at this
moment the traveller, to save his
own life kills his adversary, would it
be said he killed him in violation of
lawP No; the necessity in the case
would make legal and proper that
which but for the necessity would
be crime.
So, for an officer to destroy ship
intrusted to him by his country, is
crime. But suppose US at war
with foreign power, and one of our
national vessels we'll supplied with
military stores, should be overtaken
by an overwhelming force Of the
enemy, the captain defends his ship
as long as there is hope, until all his
men fall around him, and his cap
ture is inevitable. He pauses, shall
his ship be captured and turned
against his country, or shall he
serve his country by sacrificing him
self and bis shipH He determined
on the latter. Approaching the
magazine, he waits until his ship is
boarded by the enemy, then ignites
the magazine and in another mo-
ment the ship and all its contents is
scattered in fragments over the
waters. Will his country tarnish
his bright escutcheon, on his fame
with the charge Of destroying his
ship in violation OF law? No! but
the very necessity would make that
q dazzling virtue, which, but for the
necessity, would be dark and dam
ming crime. 1t is the necessity
which makes the law, not justifes
it.
Again, to destroy the public
property is unlawful, but suppose
in time OF war at one of our from
tier posts, large quantities of pro-
visions and military stores should
be collected, and the officer in com
mand, finding it necessary to re-
treat, is unable to remove them ;
shall they be left to strengthen the
tDemy who is in want of these very
things, or shall they be destroyed ?
The officer destroys them. Can it
he said he violated the law in doing
soY MOI 1t is the necessity which
makes the law.
1t was the necessity at New Or.
leans, not which justified Gen. jack
son in doing an illegal and uncon-
stitntional act, but which made
legal and constitutional that which
lie did do.
Thus illustrating and enforcing
his views he made lie most effective