Year: 1862

Continued


We denounce the mischievous and uncon-
stitutional tone of much of the discussion in
both Houses of Congress at its late session
We hold the general tenor of these discus
sions against the rights of slavery in the slave
holding States, and in favor of the exercise
by Congress Of powers not delegated by the
Constitution, to be eminently dangerous in
sustaining the spirit of secession at the South,
and creating disregard for the Constitution
at the North.


We denounce the abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia, at the cost OF the
United States, as unconstitutional, and pecu-
harly mischievous at this time in giving force
to the distrust of the North in all the slave
States


We denounce the sweeping end indiscrim-
mate measures of confscation and emancipa-
ton, as unconstitutional, and as having
strong tendency to unite the whole South
against the Union, as one man.


We believe that these and kindred things
have had great weight in diminishing the
numbers and influence of the Union party at
/ the South.


I We deny the power of the Executive to
suspend the writ of habeas corpus in the loval
States. We deny that this act, materially
changing the laws OF the land is an Executive
act. We have the authority of the Supreme
Court of the United States pronounced bv
the voice of Chief Justice Marshall as long
/ ago as 1907, and affirmed by every commen-
tator on the Constitution since, that under the
Constitution of the United States, it is leg
power in England, since the revolution
n a. Il. L
make arrests in the loyal States. The sus-
pension of the writ of habeds corpus. il validly
done, would not authorize this. There are
Federal Courts in all the loyal States with
full power and jurisdiction to punish all crimes
1 against the United States. No, exercise of
Executive power has ever been more odious
than letters de cdchet, by which the Executive
could arrest and imprison without judicial
writ, accusation, or trial We hold this man.
ner of arrest in the loyal States. OF persons
not IN arms against the Government, to be in
violation of Sec. ?, Art. 5, of the Constitution
OF the United States, and of Art. 4, 5 and 6
of the amendments thereto. And we consider
tins practice as unnecessary, and tending to
bring the Constitution into disregard.


We deny the power of the Executive to
trammel the freedom of the press by the sup
preston of newspapers. The press is judcially
responsible for abuses; but the freedom of the
press. subject TO judicial remedies. is essential
TO the freedom of the people. And We pro-
test against the manifest partiality with which
this new and dangerous power is exercised


We deny the recent semi-official definitions
OF the crime of treason. Treason against
the United States shall consist only in levying
war against them, or in adhering to their ene-
mics. giving them aid and comfort, In COM
mentlng on this definition in the Constitution,
Judge Story quotes with appreciation the re-
mark OF MonteSquieu, that If the crime of
treason be indeterminate, that alone is suffi-
clent TO make any government degenerate
into arbitary power; and he denounces, as the
Supreme Court of the United States had re-
jjected, the doctrine of constructive treason.
1t was in apprehension of the dangers OF con-
structive treason, that the definition of this
crime was introduced into the BODY of the
Constitution itself; and it is definition far
more IN keeping the rights of free people
than such vague phrases as disioyal practices.
The StatuteSlof the United States amply pro-
vide for the punishment of treasonable crimes
under the Constitution, and We recognize no
power in the Executive to enlarge them.


We deny the power OF the Executive to
transport persons accused of crime in the
loyal States, from the State where the crime
Is alleged TO have been committed, TO any
other State place for trial: to cause tie
trial OF any person in the loyal States for any
crime before military tribunals or other