Year: 1863

mandipg, were brought before Judge LEAvIrT Of thu
United States District Court writ Of habeas corpus
on Saturday morning, and discharged IL being shown thai
| they were minors when they were sworn in
All such proceedings, even before Judge as
"loyaP as Judge Leavitt proved himself to be il
the case Of Mr.. yallandigham, will now be stayed
| or dismissed.


| 1t is plain that when the Congress authorized q
suspension of the privilege of the writ Of habeas
corpus with regard to certain "prisoners,' it did
not mean to place "ofcers, soldiers, or seamen" in
that category, unless they had made themselves 50
by some positive act. The Presidents classified.
tion is too comprehensive.


But we have said that the proclamation, SO far
As it orders suspension Of the privilege Of the
writ Of habeas corpus with regard to certain class
Of cases. is violative of an act Of he last Con-
gress. We allude to the act Of March 3, 1868,
entitled an act for "enrolling and calling olt the
national forces" The twenty-ffth section Of that
act is in the following words:


And be further enacted, That il any person shall
ss any draft of enrolled under this act into the
son to resist any such draft shall assault obtruct
any officer in making such draft in the performance of
any service in relation thereto shall counsel any per-
TO assault or Obstuct gucn 0cer shall counsel
any drafted not to appear ut the place of rendezvous
wully dsauade them from the performance Of military
duty required by law, such person shall be subject to
summary arrest By the prorosf marshal AND SHALL BE
FORTHw rTH DELIVERED TO THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES,
and upon conviction thereof be punished BY fine not
exceeding FIVE hundred dollars by imprisonment not
exceeding two years. or BY both of said punishm nts


Now, the proclamation Of the President suspends
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus with re-
gard to persons arrested " for resisting draft" !"
Suppose, then, the case Of person arrested in New
draft +" in that State. The law says that he
SHALL BE forthwith delivered to the civil au-
thorties" for trial and conviction if proved guilty.
The proclamation says that the provost marshal
may detain all such persons according to has will
and pleasure. The privilege Of tho writ Of habess
corpus being suspended to such cases. the courts
are left poweress to enforce their own mandates or
to administer the law Of the land in this matter
Now, which shall stand !? The law of Congress or
the proclamation of the President?


1t is plain that the President has acted without
due deberation in issuing this last proclamation,
which brings him, or his agents in acting under
it, in direct conflict with the letter of law signed
by him on the same day with the law under cover
of which he assumes to have issued it.


We know that there are those who will be swift
to tax him with having attempted an "usurpa-
tion" in this matter. We shall not deal in any
such insinuations, or bring any such allegations
against the Chief Magistrate of he country made
such by the Constitution and the laws, the former
of which he has sworn to "preserve, protect, and
defend" and to take care that the latter be IN
fully executed" If in any respect he seems to fail
in the performance Of this high trust, especially
in matter 80 open to public observation as that
under consideration, it is much easier for us to
assume, 10 explanation of it, an error of Judgment
or misspprehension of the true relations of the
question, than deliberate purpose on his part to
disregard his constitutional obligations to trampe
on the chartered rights Of the American people.
But this candid consideration Of the Presidents
motives and purity of intention caEnot make us
vary hairs breadth in stating the law, or give
us moments pause in demanding that its sane
tions be observed equally by rulers and ruled.
We have full faith that the President will revise
his proclamation n this regard so as to bring it
within the limits and put it under the shield Of





the law. He cannot expect to put a stop to all
Judicial proceedings in matters so vitality inter
esting to the people. Nay, he has publicly en-
gagged to abide by the decision of the Supreme
Court on the question that has been raised as to
the constitutionality of the enrolment law. To
this effect he wrote to Governor Seymour, Of New
York, under date of August 7th, as follows


IL do not object to abide decision OF the United States
Supreme Court or of the Judges thereof the consu
facilitate the obtaining of it, but consent to lose
the time while it is being obtained"


Now, how can any such question ever be brought
before the Supreme Court if the writ Of habeas
corpus is to be suspended in the case of all persons
enrolled, or drafted or mustered, or enlisted in
or belonging to the land or naval forces Of the
United States2" Is single test case to be al
lowed by way Of grace for the purpose Of trying
the question Then the question ceases to be
one Of common right open to the enjoyment Of all,
and lspses into matter Of privilege, dependent
for its origin and its solution on the will and plea
sure Of the Executive. The American people
have not SO learned therown rights or their rulers
duties.


II gives us no pleasure t, take these exceptions
to any declaration Of the President. But what