Crawfordsville Weekly Journal, Crawfordsville, Montgomery County, 4 June 1863 — Page 1

-T*A-

J"eremiali

Keeney, I

EntToa AXD PUBMSHKR.

VOL. XV.--N0.38.

THE YALLAKDIGH1M HABEAS CORPUS CASE.

E O E E E A I

The Circuit Court Declines to Issue the Writ.

OPINION OF TI1E JUDaE IN FULL.

From the Cincinnati Daily Gazette.

At ten o'clock on Saturday morning, May 16th, the Circuit court room was crowded to hear the decision of Judge Leavitt in the application of C. L. Vallandigham for a writ of habeas coipus The following is the decision of the Court:

ETC parte—C. JJ. .Vallandigham—Habeas Corpus. This case is before the Court on the petition of Clement L. Vallandigham, & citizen of Ohio, alleging that he was unlawfully arrested at his home in Dayton, in this State, on the night of the 5th of May, inst., by a detachment of soldiers of the army of the United States, acting under the orders of Ambrose E. Burnside, a Major-General in the army of the United States, and brought, against his will, to the city of Cincinnati, where he has been subjected to a trial before a Military Commission, and is still detained in custody and restrained of his liberty. The petitioner also avers, that he is not in the land or naval service of the United States, and has not been called into active service in the militia of any State and that his arrest, detention and trial, as set forth in his petition, are illegal, and in violation of the Constitution of tho United States. The prayer is, that a writ of habeas corpus may issue requiring General Burnside to produce tho bod}r of the petitioner before this Court, with the cause of his caption and detention. Accompanying the petition is a statement of the charges or specifications on which he alleges he was tried before the Military Commission. For the purposes of this decis ion it is not necessary to notice these charges specially, but it may be stated in brief that they impute to tho petitioner the utterance of sundry disloj-al opinions and statements, in a public speech at the town of Mt. Vernon, in the State of Ohio, on the 1st of May inst., with the knowledge "that they did aid and comfort and encourage those in arms against the Government, and could but induce in his hearers a distrust in their own Government and a sympathy for those in arms against it, and a disposition to resist the laws of the land." The petitioner does not Btate what the judgment of the Military Commission is, nor is the Court informed whether he has been condemned or acquitted on tho charges exhibited against him.

Jt is proper to remark here, that on the presentation of the petition the Court stated to the counsel for Mr. Vallandigham that, according to the usages of the Court, as well, as .of other Courts of high authority, the writ was notgrantable of course, and would only be allowed on a sufficient showing that it ought to issue. The Court is entirely satisfied of tho correctness of the course thus indicated. The subject was fully examined by the learned Justice Swayne, when present, the presiding Judge of this Court, on a, petition for a habeas corpus, presented at the last October Term a case to which further reference will be presently made. I shall* now only.noto the authorities on this point, which seem to "be entirely conclusive. Peters 201, Cushing, ft. 285. ^Hurd on habeas corpus, 222, 3, 4. Ip pursuance of this ruling, an order "was made by the Court that notice be given to General Burnside, 6f the pendency in the Court of the application for the writ, to the end that he might appear by counsel or otherwise to oppose the granting of the writ. That distinguished General has accordingly presented a respectful communication to the Court, stating generally and arguinentatively the reasons of the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham, and has also authorized able counsel "to represent him in resistance of the application for the writ. And the case has been argued at great length, and with great ability on the motion fbr its allowance.

Ki

It is proper to remark farther, that when the petition was presented, the Court made a distinct reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Bothuel Rupert, at October Term, 1862, before noticed, as an authoritative precedent for its action on the application. On full reflection, I do not see how it is possible for me, sitting alone in the Circuit Court, to ignore the decision, made

upon full consideration by us-

tice Swayne, with the concurrence of inyself, and which, as referrable to all (joseis involving the same

principle,

must be rogarded as the law of this Court vmtij re versed by a higher Court.

The case of Rupert was substantially the same as that of the present petitioner. lie set out in his petition what he alleged to be an unlawfularrest by the order of a military officer, on a charge imputing to him acts of disloyalty to the Government, and sympathy with the rebellion against it, and an unlawful detention and imprisonment us the result of such order. The application, however, in the case of Rupert, differed from the one now before the Court, in this, that affidavits were exhibited intended to disprove the charge of disloj-al conduct imputed to him and also in this, that there was no pretense or showing by Rupert that there had been an}7 investigation or trial by any Court of the charges agair.st him.

The petition in this case is addressed to the Judges of the Circuit Court, and not to a single Judge of that Court.— It occurs from the absence of Mr. Justice Swaj-ne that the District Judge is now holding the Circuit Court, as he is authorized to do by law. But thus sitting, would it not bo in violation of all settled rules of judicial practice, as well as of courtesy, for the District Judge to reverse a decision of the Circuit Court, made when both Judges were on tho Bench? It is well known that the District Judge, though authorized to sit with the Circuit Judge in the Circuit Court, does not occup}- the same official position, and that the latter Judge, when present, is, ex officio, the presiding udge. It is obvious that confusion and uncertainty, greatly impairing the respect due to the adjudications of the Circuit Courts of the United States, would result from the assumption of such an exercise of power b}- the District Judge. It would not on I}* be disrespectful to the Superior Judge, but would evince in the District Judge, an utter want of appreciation of his true official connection with the Circuit Court.

Now, in passing upon the application of Rupert, Mr. Justice Swayne in an opinion of some length, though not written, distinctly held, that this Court would not grant ihe writ of habeas corpus., when it appeared that the detention or imprisonment was under military authority. It is true, that Rupert was a man in humble position—unknown bej-ond the narrow circle in which he moved while the present petitioner has a wide-spread fame as a prominent politician and statesman.— But no one will insist that there should be any difference in the principles applicable to the two cases. If any distinction were allowable, it would be against him of admitted intelligence and distinguished taients.

I might with entire confidence place the grounds of action I propose in the present case, upon the decision of the learned Judge in that just referred to. Even if I entertained doubts of the soundness of his views, I see no principleon which I could be justified in treating the opinion as void of authority.— But the counsel of Mr. Vallandigham was not restricted in the argument of this motion to this point. It seemed due to him that the Court should hear what could be urged against the legality of the arrest, aud in favor of the interposition of the Court in behalf of the petitioner. And I have been greatly interested in the forcible argument which has been submitted, though unable to concur with the speaker in all his conclusions.

If it were my desVre to do so, I have not now the physical strength to notice or discuss at length the grounds on which the learned counsel has attempted to prove the illegality of General Burnside's order for the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham, and the duty of the Court to grant the writ applied for.— The basis of the whole argument is the fact that Mr. Vallandingham not being in the military or naval service of the Government, and not therefore subject to the rules and articles of war, was not liable to arrest under or by military power. And the various provisions of the Constitution, intended to guard citizens against unlawful arrests and imprisonments, have been cited and urged upon the attention of the Court as having a direct bearing on the point. It is hardly necessary to quote these excellent guarantees of the rights and liberties of an American citizen, as thejT are familiar with every reader of the Constitution. And it may be conceded'that if, by a just construction of the constitutional powers of the Government, in the solemn emergency now existing, they are applicable to and must control, the question of the legality of the arrest of the petitioner, it cannot be sustained for the obvious reason that no warrant was issued "upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation," as is*required in ordinary drrests for alleged crimes. But are there not other considerations of a controlling character Applicable to

Tlie Union, in any event.

I have Harvesters to cut your wheat, And Machines to thresh it all so neat: I have Cane Mills which cannot fail to suit, And Cider Mills to grind and press your fruit.

Come, farmers, now is the time to buy, You will find Machinery not so high Though 'tis some higher than last season, But for this rise we have good reason.

FOR THE HARVEST OE 1863.

'-Q.THOMAS £MC

FARMERS! IF YOU W\AjNTT A QOOU Combined Reaper and Mower,

A Self-Raking Reaper,

Or, a Mower alone,

Or in fact anything in the way of Harvest Implements don't you purchase before calling at tho

of S. H. GREGG-, and examining the best stocls of the kind in the market. You /will here find the

N. YORK SELF-RAKER, KENTUCKY HARVESTER, AND BALL'S OHIO REAPER!

either of which I will warrant to be as good if not superior to any other Machines now in tho market

So come along, come on and all, And give the undersigned a call Just drop in at the old Empire, And you will find Sain, Rice or Ricr.

You will find us right side up and willing To wait on a customer and make a shilling. So call in, farmers, you will find us all sound, And take great pleasure in showing you round.

SAMUEL I I. GRKCiG,

Sign of the "MSig PatUocL'^ »To. 2 Empire Block,

Crawforasville,

May 14, 1863.—8w.

the question? Is not the Court imperatively bound to regard the present state of the county, and, in the light which it throws upon the subject, to decide upon the expediency of interfering with the exercise of the military power as invoked in the pending application? The Court cannot shut its eyes to the grave fact that war exists, involving tho most imminent danger, and threatening the subversion and rie struction of the Constitution itself. In my judgement, when the life of the Republic is imperiled, he mistakes his duty and obligation as a patriot, who is not willing to concede to the Constitution such a capacity of adaptation to circumstances as ma}* be necessary to meet a great emergency, and save the nation from hopeles ruin. Selfpreservation is a paramount law, which a nation, as an individual, may find it necessary to invoko. Nothing is hazarded in saying, that the great and far seeing men who framed the Constitution of the United States, supposed they were laying the foundations of our National Government on an immovable basis. They did not contemplate the existence of the state of things with which the nation is now unhappily confronted the heavy pressure of which it is felt by every true patriot. They did not recognize the right of Secession by one or more States, for the obvious reason that it would have been an incorporation of an element in the Constitution for the destruction of the Union. Tn their glowing visions of futurity there was no foreshadowing of of a period, when the people of a large geographical section would be guilty of the madness and the crime of arraying themselves in rebellion against the Government, under whose mild and benignant sway there was so much of hope and promise for the coming ages. We need not be surprised, therefore, that, in the organic law which they gave us, they made no specfic provision for such a lamentable occurrence. They did, however, distinctly contemplate the possibility of foreign war, and vested in Congress the power to declare its existence, and "to raise and support armies" and "pi*ovide and maintain a navy." They were aware that tho grant of these powors implied all other powers necessary to give them full effect. They also declared that the' President of the United States "shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, and of

the Militia of the several States when called into actuai service," and they placcd upon him the solemn obligation "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Under this last named provision, and in reference to a local rebellion, in which the laws of the Union were obstructed, the act of the 23d of February, 1795, was passed, providing, in substance, that whenever in any State the civil authorities of the Union were unable to enforce the laws,-the President shall be empowered to call out such military force as may be necessary for tho emergency. Fortunately for the county, this law was in force when several States of the Union repudiated their allegiance to the National Government, and placed themselves in armed rebellion against it. It was sufficiently comprehensive in its terms to meet such an occurrence, although it was not a caso within the contemplation of Congress when the law was enacted. It was under this statute that the President issued his Proclamation of the 15th of April, 1861. From that time the country has been in a state of war, the history and progress of which are familliar to all.— More than two 3*ears- have elapsed, during which tho treasure of the nation has been lavishly contributed and blood has freely flowed, and this formidable rebellion is not 3ret subdued. The energies of the loyal people of the Union are to be put to further trials, and in all probability the enemy is yet to be encountered on many a bloody field.

It is not to be disguised that our county is in imminent peril, and that the crisis demands of every American citizen, a hearty support of all proper means for the restoration of theUuion, and the return of an honorable peace. Those placed by the people at the head of the Government, are earnestly and sincerely devoted to its preservation and perpetuity. The President may not be the man of our choice, and the measures of his Administration may not be such as all can fully approve.— But these are minor considerations, and can absolve no man from the paramount obligation of lending his aid for the salvation of his country. All should fell that no evil they can be called on to endure as the result of war is comparable with the subversion of our chosen Government, and the horrors which must follow from such a catastrophe.

-s ,f

CRAWFORDSVILLEj IND., JUNE 4, 1863. {WHOLE NO. 773

Terms:

having some bearing on the question before the Court- It is clearly not a time when any one connected with the Judicial Department of the Government, should allow himself except from the most stringent obligations of duty to embarass or thwart the Executive in his efforts to deliver the country from the dangers which press so heavily upon it. Now the question which I am called upon to decide is, whether Gen. Burnside, as an agent of the Executive Department of tho Government has transgressed his authority in ordering the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham. If the theory of his counsel is sustainable, that there can be no legal arrest except by warrant based on an affidavit of probable cause, the conclusion would be clear, that the arrest was illegal. But I do not think I am bound to regard the inquiry as occupying this narrow base. General Burnside, bjthe order of the President, has been designated and appointed to take the military supervision of the Department of the Ohio, composed of the States of Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan. The precise extents of his authority in this responsibe position arc not known to the Court. It may, however, be properly assumed as a fair presumption, that the President has clothed him with all the powers necessary to the efficient discharge of his duties in the station to which he has been called. He is the representative and agent of the President, within tho limits of his Department. In time of war the President is not above the Constitution, but derives his power expressly from the provision of that instrument, declaring that he shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. The Constitution does not specify the powors lie may rightfully exercise in this character, nor are they defined by legislation. No one denies, however, that the President, in this character, is invested with very high powers, which itis well known have been exercised on various occasions duringthe present rebellion. A memorable instanco of its exercise is seen in the Emancipation Proclamation issued by the President as Com-mander-in-Chief, and which he justifies as a military necessity. Itis, perhaps not easy to define what acts are properly within this designation, but they must undoubtedly be limited to such as are deemed essential to the protcc-1 tion and preservation of the Government and the Constitution, which the President has sworn to support and defend. And in deciding what he may righfully do under this power where there is no express legislative declaration, tho President is guided solely by his own judgement and discretion, and is only amendable for an abuse of his authority by impeachment, prosecuted according to the requirement of tho Constitution. The occasion which calls for exercise of this power exists only from the necessity of the case and when the necessity exists, there is a clear justification of the act.

If this view of the power of the President is correct, it undoubtedly implies the right to arrest persons, who, by their inischievious acts of disloyalty, impede or endanger the military operations of the Government.— And, if the necessixy exists, I see no reason why tlie power does not attach to the officer or General in command of a military department. The only reason why the appointment is made, is that the President cannot discharge the duties in person. Eo, therefore, constitutes an agent to represent him, clothed with the necessary power for the efficient supervision of the military interests of the Government throughout the department. And it is not necessary that martial law should be proclaimed or exist, to enable the General in command to perform the duties assigned to him. Martial law is well defined by an able jurist to be "the will of a military commander operating without any restraint, save his judgment upon the lives, uponthepersons, upon the entire social and individual condition of all over whom this law extends." It cannot be claimed that this law was in operation in Gen. Burnside's Department, when Mr. Vallandigham was arrosted.

Nor is it necessary that it should have been in force to justify the arrest. The power vested by virtue of the authority was conferred by tho appoint1 ment Of the Prosident. Under that appointment Gen. Burnside assumed the command of this Department.— That he was a man eminently fitted for the position there is no room for a doubt. He had achieved during his brief military career a national reputation as a wise, discreet, patriotic and brave General. He not only enjoyed the confidence and respect of the President and Secretary of Warr but of the

I have referred thus briefly to the| whole country. He had nobly laid his present crisis of the country as party preferences and predilections

50 PER YEAR Ilf ADVANCE 2 00 WITIIIN THE YEAR.

upon the altar of his country, and consecrated his life to herserivce. It was known that the widely-extended Department, with the military supervision of which he was charged, was one of great importance, and demanded great vigilance and ability in the administration of its military concerns. Kentucky was a border State, in which there was a large element of disaffection toward the National Government, and sympathy with those in rebellion against it. Formidable invasions have been attempted, and are now threatened. Four of the States have a river border, and are in perpetual danger of invasion. In Ohio, Indiana and Illinois a class of mischievious politicians had succeeded in poisoning the minds of a portion of tho community with the rankest feelings of disloyalty-— Artful politicians, disguising their latent treason under hollow pretens-ioos of devotion to the Union, were striving to disseminate their pestilent heresis among the masses of the people. The evil was one of alarming magnitude, and threatened seriously to impede the military operations of the government, and greatly to protract the suppression of the rebellion. General Burnside was not slow to perceive the dangerous .consequences of these disloyal efforts, and resolved, if possible, to suppress them. In the exercise of his discretion, ho issued the order-No. 38-which has been brought to tho notice of the Court. I shall not comment on that order, or say anything more in vindication of its expediency. I refer to it only because General Burnside, in his manly and patriotic communication to the Court, has stated fully his motives and reasons for issuing it, and also.that it was for its supposed violation that he ordered the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham.— He has done this under his xesponsibility as the Commanding General of this Department, and in accordance with what he supposed to be the power vested in him by the appointment of the President. It was virtually the act of the Executive Department under tho power vested in tho President by the Constitution and I am unable to perceive on what principle this judicial tribunal can be invoked to annul or reverse it. In the judgment of the Commanding General-, the emer-' gency required it, and' whether he acted wisely or discreetly is not properly subject for judicial review'.

It is worthy of remark liere, that' this arrest was not made by General Burnside under any claim or pretension that he had authority to dispose, of or punish tho party arrested, according to his own will, without trial and! proof of the facts alleged as the ground for the arrest, but with a view to an investigation by a military court of commission. Such an investigationhas taken place, the resultof which has not been mado known to this-Court.— Whether tho Military Commission forv the trial of the charges against Mr. Vallandigham was legally constituted and had jurisdiction of tho case, is not a question before the Court. There is. clearly no authority in this Court, on: the pending motion, to revise or reverse the proceedings of the Military Commission, if they wore before the. Court. The whole question is, whether the arrest was legal and as before remarked, its legality depends on the necessity which existed for making it and for that necessity, for the reason stated, this Court cannot judicially determine. General Burnside is unquestionably amenable to the Executivo Department for his cortduct. If he has acted arbitrarily and upott insufficient reasons, it is withift the power, and would be the duty, of the President, not only to annul the acts, but to visit him with decisive marks of his disapprobation. To tho President, in his capacity of Commander-in-Chief of the Army, be must answer for his. official conduct. But under our Constitution, which studiously seeks to keep the executive, legislative and ju-" dicial departments of the Government, from all interference and conflict with each other, it would bo an unwarran-. table exercise of tho judicial power to, decide that a co-ordinate branch of the Government, acting under its high rerespohsibilities, had violated the Constitution, in its letter or its spirit, byauthorizing the arrest in quofition.— Especially in these troublous times, when the national life is in peril, and when union and harmony among tho different branches of the Government ar« so imperatively demanded, such interference would find no excuse or vindication. If the doctrine is to obtain, that every one charged with and guilty of acts of mischievioua disloyalty, not within the scope of the criminal laws of the land, in custody under military authority, is to be set'free hy