Year: 1863

l.


tutional right to have an inmediate inves


tigation made as to. the legality of hi,


arrest upon habeas corpus, yet his ssrigh'


to speedy and public trial by an Impair


tlal jury of the State and District wherein


the crime shall have been committed


will not be altered; neither will his right


to the exemption from "cruel and unusual


punishments;" nor his right to be secure
In his person, houses, papers and effects


against unreasonable seizures and searches


nor his right to be deprived of life, liber-


ty or property without due process of law;
nor his right not to be held to answer for
capital or otherwise Infamous offence,
unless on presentment or Indictment of
a grand jury, be in any wise changed
And certainly the restriction upon the
power OF Congress to suspend the writ of
habeas corpus, in time of insurrection or
invasion, could not affect the guaranty
that the freedom of speech and of the
press shall not be abridged 1t is some
times urged that the proceedings in the
civil tribunals are too tardy and ineffec-
tive Tor cases arising in times of insurrec-
ton or invasion. 1t is full reply to this
to say, that arrests by civil process may
be equally as expeditions and effective as
arrests by military orders. True, a sum-
mary trial and punishment are not allow
ed in the civil courts. But if the offender
be under arrest and imprisoned, and not
entitled to discharge on writ of habeas
corpus, before trial, what more can be re-
quired for the purposes of the govern
ment? The idea that all the constitu-
tlonal guarantees of personal liberty are
suspended, throughout the country, at
time of insurrection or invasion in any
part oft, places us upon sea of uncertain
ty, and subjects the life, liberty of every
citizen to the mere will of a military COM
mander, or what he may say he considers
the public safety requires. Does your Ex-
cellency wish to have it understood that
you hold that the rights of every man
throughout this vast country are subject
to be annulled whenever yom man soy that
go" consider the public safety requires it,
In time ofinvasion or insurrection?


You are further reported as having
said that the constitutional guarantees
of personal liberty have "no application
to the present case we have in hand, be-
cause the arrests complained of were not
made for treason-that is, not for the
treason defined in the Constitution, and
upon the conviction of which the punish
ment is death-nor. yet were they made
to hold persons to answer for any capital
or otherwise infamous crime; nor were the
proceedings following in any constitutions
al or legal sense "crfminaf pfosecuti ns:g
The arrests were made on totally differ
ent grounds, and the proceedings follow
ing accorded with the grounds of the ar
rests, &c.


The conclusion to be drawn from this
position of your Excellency is, that where
man is liable to "a criminal prosecution,
or is charged with a crime known to the
land, he is clothed with all the constitu-
tional guarantees for his safety and secu-
rity from wrong and injustice; but that
where he is not liable to ''criminal pros
ecution." or charged with any crime
known to the laws, if the President or any
military commander shall say that he con-
siders that the public safety requires it.
this man may be put outside OF the pale
of the constitutional guarantees, and ar
rested without charge of crime, impris-
ed without knowing what for, and any
length of time, or be tried before court
martial and sentenced to any kind of pun
ishment, unknown to the laws of the land.
which the President or the military COM
mander may see proper to impose. Did
the Constitution intend to throw the shield
of its securities acound the man liable to
be charged with treason as defined by
1T, and yet leave the man, not liable
to any charge, unprotected by the safe
guards of personal liberty and person
al securities? Can a man not in the
military or naval service, nor within the
field of the operations of the army, be
arrested and imprisoned without any law
to authorize it2 Can man thus, in civil
life, be punished without any law defn-
ing the offense and prescribing the pun
isbment? If the President or court
martial may prescribe one kind of pun
ishment unauthorized by law, why not
any other kind? Banishment is an un-
usual punishment and unknown to our
laws. If the President has the right to
prescribe the punishment of Punishment,
why not that of death and confscation of
property? Ifthe President had no right to
change the punishment prescribed by the
court martial from Imprisonment to BAN
ishment, why not from Imprisonment to
torture on the rack, orexecution upon the
gibbet? 1s l. ss9si4


If an inde6nable kind of constructive
treason is to be introduced and engrafted
upon the Constitution, unknown to the
laws of the land, and subject to the will
of the President whenever an insurrec-'
ton or invasion shall occur in any part
of this vast country, what safety or secu-
rity will be left for the liberties Of the
people? s3F


The constructive treason that gave the
friends of freedom so many years of toll
in England were ineonsiderable COM
pared to this. The precedents which you
make will become part of the Constitu-
tion for your successors, if sanctioned and
acquiesced in by the people now. elt


The people of Ohio are willing to CO.
operate zealously with you in every effort
warranted by the Constitution to restore
the Union of the States, but they cannot
consent to abandon those fundamental
nrincinles of civil liberty which arc es-