Year: 1863

1 u
qure the suspension. Indeed arrests by pro.
cess of courts and arrests in cases of rebellion
do not proceed together on the same basis
The former is directed at the small per cent.
age of ordinary aud continuous preparation
Of crime, while the latter is directed at sud
den and extensive uprisings against the
| Government, which at most, will succeed
or fail in no great length OF time. In the
latter case, arrests are made, not so much
for what has been done, as for what proba
bly, would be done. The latter is moro iol
the preventive and less for the vindictive
than the former. In such cases the pur.
poses of men are more easily understood
than in cases OF ordinary crime. The man
who stands by and says nothing when the
peril of his Government is discussed can not
bo understood. If not hindered, he is sure
to help the enemy; much more, If he talks
ambiguously ly-talks for his country with
butts and ifs and "andS.' OF how lit
tie value the constitutional provisions have
quoted will be rendered. it arrests shall
never be made until defined crimes shall
have been committed. may be illustrated
10y few notable examples. General John
c. breckenridge General Robert +. Lee
General Joseph T. Johnston, General John
B. Magrudcr. General William B. Preston
General Simon b. Buckner and Com, Frank


lin Buchanan, now occupying the very high
est places in the rebel war service. were
all within the power of the Government
since the rebellion began, and were nearly
as well known to be traitors then as now.
Unqucstionably, if we had seized and held
them the insurgent cause would he much
weaker. Butno one of them had then com
mitted any crime defined i'll the law. Every
one of them, if arrested, would havo been
discharged on habcas corpus, were the
writ allowed to operate. In view of these
and similar cases, think the time not un-
likely to come when | shall be blamed for
having made too few arrests than too many.


BY the third resolution the meeting indi-
cate their opinion that military arrests may
be constitutional in localities whore rebel
lion actually exists, but that such arrests
are unconstitutional in localities where re-
bellon or insurrection does not actually eX-
list. They insist that such arrests shall
not be made outside of the lines of ne
cessary military occupation and scenes of in
surrecton." lnasmuch, however, as the
Constitution itself makes no such distinction.
| am unable to believe that there is any
such constitutional distinction. | conclude
that the class of arrests complained of can
be constitutional only when, in cases of re-
bollion or invasion, the public safety may
require them; and | insist that in such
cases they are constitutional wherever the
public safety does require them, as well in
places TO which they may prevent tho re-
belliOn extending as i'll those where it may
be already prevailing; as wcll where they
may restrain mischievious interference with
the raising and supplying of armies to sup
press the rebellion, as where the rebellion
may actually be; as well where they may
restrain the enticing of men out Of the army,
as where they would prevent mutiny in the
army; equally constitutional at all places
where they will cOnduce to the public safe
ty, as against the dangers OF rebellion or
invasion. Take the particular case men,
toned by the meeting. 1t is asserted i'll
substance, that Mr.. Nallandigham was, by a
military commander, seized and tried for
no other reason than words addressed to II
public meeting in criticism Of the course
of the Administration, and III condemnation
of the military orders OF the General"
Now, if there be no mistake about this if
this assertion is the truth and the whole
truth if there was no other reason for the
arrest, then concede that the arrest was
wrong. l}ut the arrest, as | understand.
was made for very different reason. Mr..
Vallandighum avows his hostility to the
war on the part of the Union; and his ar
rest was made because hc was laboring
with some effect to prevent tho raising of
troops, to encourage desertions from the
army, and to leave the rebellion without
an adequate military force to suppress it,.
He was not arrested because he was dam
aging the political prospects Of the Admin


stration. or the personal interests OF tho
commanding general, but because he was
damaging the army, upon the existence and
vigor of which the llo of the nation de-
pends. IIo was warning upon the military,
and this gave the military constitutional
jurisdiction to lay hands upon him. If MIR.
Nallandigham was not damaging tho mill
tary power of the country, then his arrest
was made on mistake Of fact, which would
be glad to correct on reasonably satisac-
tory evidence.


understand the meeting, whose resolu-
tions am considering, to be i'll favor of
supprcssing the rebellion by military force
by armies. Long experience has shown
that armies can not be maintained unless
desertion shall be punished by tho severe
penalty Of death. The case requires, and
the law aud the Constitution sanction, this
punishment. Must shoot a simple-minded
soldier boy who deserts, while | must not
touch hair of a willy agitator who induces
him to desert? This is none the less inju-
rious when effected by getting father or
brother or friend into a public meeting, and
thero working upon his feelings till he is
persuaded to write the soldier boy that he
is fighting III bad cause, for u wicked Ad-
ministratiOn of IA contemplate Government,
too weak to punish him if he shall desert


think that in such Il case TO silence the
agitator and save the boy is not only CON
stitutional, but withal great mercy.


If be wrong on this question Of cOnSti-
tutional power my error lies in believing
that certain proceedings are constitutional
when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the
public safety requires them, which would
not be constitutional when, in absence of
rebellion or invasion, the public safety does
not require them. In other words, that the
Constitution is not, in its application, in all
respects the same, in cases of rebellion or
invasion involving the public safety as it
is in times of profound peace and public
security. The Constitution itself makes the
distinction; and | can 10 more be per-
suaded that the Government can cOnstitu-
tionally take no strong measures IN time OF
rebellion, because it can be shown that the
same could not be lawfully taken in time of
peace, than can be persuaded that a par
ticular drug is not good medicine for sick
man, because it can be shown not to be
good food for well one. Nor am able
to appreciate the danger apprchended by the
meeting that the American people will, by
means Of military arrests during the rec
bolton, lose the right of public discussion
the liberty of speech and the press, law OF
nuiLnncn trinl hv inrv aud hahnas cnrnms