Democratic Sentinel, Volume 4, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 July 1880 — WINFIELD SCOTT HANCOCK. [ARTICLE]

WINFIELD SCOTT HANCOCK.

His Wise and Patriotic Record upon Questions of Public Liberty. He Raises the Great Shield of Ihc Constitution for the Defence of the People’s Rights— He maintains Civil ■ aw Against Arbitrary Authority— He Defends the Principles of Free Government finder All Circumstances—Sentiments and Language Worthy of President George Washington. [From The Sun of Nov. 19, 1879.] Gen. Winfield 8. Hancock rendered services in the field during the war of the highest importance to the country; but the services he rendered after the close of hostilities were of incalculable value, and deserving of everlasting remembrance. As commander of the Department of Missouri (1866-’7)and of the Department of Louisiana and Texas (1867-’8) he had to deal with civil questions requiring the best statesmanship and the soundest judgment; and the way in which ho dealt with them showed that lie possessed the qualities necessary for tlieir proper decision. In times of peril to the constitutional rights of the States and to the.fundamental liberties of the people, he went to the full extent of his power in maintaining those rights and liberties, apd made for himself a record that the American people must keep before tlieir eyes in the days that are now upon us. We have brought together from his orders, letters and speeches, while commanding the departments just named, a few passages of profound, permanent, and practical interest.

ORDER NO. 10.—MILITARY AUTHORITY OIVES WAT TO THE CIVIL —THE I'RINOITLEH OF AMERICAN LIBERTY OUR LAWFUL INHERITANCE. The General commanding is gratified to learn that peace and quiet reign in this department. It will be his purpose to preserve this condition of things. As a means to this great end, he regards the maintenance of the civil authorities in the faithful execution of the laws as the most efficient under existing circumstances. In war it is indispensable to repel force by force, and overthrow and destroy opposition to lawful authority. But when insurrectionary force has been overthrown and peace established, and the civil authorities are ready and willing to perform their duties, the military power should cease to lead, and the civil administration resume its natural and rightful dominion. So'emnly impressed with these views, the General announces that the great principles of American liberty are still the lawful inheritance of this people, and ever should be. Tho right of trial by jury, (lie habeas corpus, the liberty of the press, the freedom of speech, the natural rights of persons, ancl the rights of property must be preserved. Free institutions, while they are essential to the prosperity and happiness of the people, always furnish the strongest inducements to peace and order. * * * While the General thus indicates his purpose to respect the liberties of the people, be wishes all to understand that armed incursions or forcible resistance to the law will he instantly suppressed by anus. THE INTERPOSITION OF THE MILITARY POWER FOR THE TKIAL OF ORDINARY OFFENKHS, WHEN THE CIVIJj COURTS ARE OPEN, FUEL OF DANGER TO LIBERTY. It must be a matter of profound regret to all who value constitutional government that there should be occasions in time of civil commotion when the public good imperatively requires the intervention of the military power for repression of disorders in the body politic, and for tho punishment of offenses against the existing laws of the country framed for tho preservation of social ordei ; but that the intervention of this power should be called for, or even suggested, by civil magistrates, when the laws are are no longer silent, and civil magistrates are possessed, in their respective spheres, of all the powers necessary to give effect to the lav.s, excites the surprise of the commander of the Fifth Military District. In his view it is of evil example, and full of danger to the cause of freedom and good government, that the exercise of the military power, through military tribunals, created for the trial of offenses against the civil law, should evor be permitted, when the ordinary powers of the existing State Governments are ample for the punishment of offenders, if those charged with the administration of the laws are faithful in the discharge of their duties. GEN. HANCOCK IN REPLY TO A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR—HE FAVORS THE LARGEST LIRERTY OF OPINION AND DISCUSSION—EXTRACT FROM HIS LETTER TO GOV. PEASE, OF TEXAS. My Dear Sir : lam not a lawyer, nor lias it been my business, as it may have been yours, to study the philosophy of statecraft and" politics. But I may lay claim, after an experience of more than half a lifetime, to some poor knowledge of men, and some appreciation of what is necessary to social order and happiness. And for the future of our common country I could devoutly wish that no great number of our people have yet fallen in with the views you appear to entertain. Woe be to us whenever it shall come to pass that (lie power of the magistrate—civil or military—is permitted to deal with the mere opinions or feelings of the people. I have been accustomed to believe that Rontiments of respect or disrespect, and feelings of affection, love, or hatred, so long as not developed into acts in violation of law, wero matters wholly beyond the punitory power of human tribunals. I will maintain that the entire freedom of thought and speech, however acrimoniously indulged, is consistent with the noblest aspirations of man, and the happiest conditions of his race. When a l>oy, I remember to have rend a speech of Lord Chatham, delivered in Parliament. It was during our Revolutionary war, ’and related to the policy of employing the savages on the side of Britain. You may bo more familiar with the speech than I am.’ If I am not greatly mistaken, his Lordship denounced the British Government—his Government—in terms of unmeasured bitterness. He characterized its policy as revolting to every sentiment of humanity and religion; proclaimed it covered with disgrace, and vented his eternal abhorrence of it and its measures. It may, I think, be safely asserted that a majority of the British nation concurred in the views of Lord Chatham. But who ever supposed that profound peace was not existing in that kingdom, or that Government had any authority to question the absolute right of the opposition to express their objections to the propriety of the King’s measure in any words or to any extent they pleased? It would be difficult to show that the opponents of the Government in the days of the elder Adams, or Jefferson, or Jackson exhibited for it either “ affection ’’ or “respect.” You are conversant with the history of our past parties and political struggles touching legislation on alienage, sedition, the embargo, national banks, our wars with England and Mexico, and cannot be ignorant of the fact that for one party to assert that a law or system of legislation is unconstitutional, oppressive, and nsurpative, is not a new tiling in the United States That the people of Texas consider acts of Congress unconstitutional, oppressive, or insulting to them, is of no consequence to the matter in hand. The President of the United States has announced his opinion that these acts of Congress are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, as you are aware, not long ago decided unanimously that a certain military commission was unconstitutional. Our people everywhere, in every State, without reference to the side they took during the Rebellion, differ as to the constitutionality of these acts of Congress. How the matter really is, neither you nor I may dogmatically affirm. If you deem them constitutional laws, and beneficial to the country, you not only have the right to publish your opimons, but it might be your bounden duty as a citizen to do so. Not less is it the privilege and duty of any and every citizen, wherever residing, to publish his opinion freely and fearlessly on this and every question which he thinks concerns his interest This is merely in accordance with the principles of our free Government; and neither you nor I would wish to live under any other. It is time now, at the end of almost two vears from the close of the war, we should begin to recollect what manner of people we are; to tolerate again free popular cUsouaeion, a»d ex-

tend some forbearance and consideration to opposing views. The maxims that in all intellectual contests truth is mighty and must prevail, and that error is harmless when reason is left free to combat it, are not only sound but salutary. It is a poor compliment to the merits of such a cause that its advocates would silence opposition by force ; and generally those only who are in the wrong will resort to this ungenerous means. lam confident you will not commit your serious judgment to the proposition that any amount of discussion, or any sort of opinions, however unwise in your judgment, or any assertion of feeling, however resentful or bitter, not resulting in a breach of law*, can furnish justification for your denial that'profound peace exists in Texas. Yon might aR well deny that profound peace exists in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, California, Ohio and Kentucky, where a majority of the people differ with a minority on these questions ; or that profound peace exists in the House of Representatn es or the Senate at Washington, or in the Supreme Court, where all these questions have been repeatedly discussed, and parties respectfully and patiently heard. THE BABCOCK COURT—GEN. HANCOCK 1 * MOTION TERMINATING PROCEEDINGS. Gen. W. 8. Hancock arose in his place and, addressing the court, said : Mr. President : I have a motion to make to the court which will lie proper to be made before the court is sworn, if it be made at all. If the ‘court are prepared to hear me, I will proceed at once. Lieut. Gen. Sheridan—Proceed, General; the court will hear you. Gen. Hancock then read the following motion : A sense of duty to the laws, to the military service, and to the accused impels mo to ask your concurrence in a postponement of this inquiry for the present. We are all bound to believe in the entire innocence of Gen. Babcock, and tliis presumption cannot lie repelled without the evidence. It is due to him to suppose that the Court of Inquiry was asked in good faith for the reasons given. What wero these reasons ? In the course of a legal trial in St. Louis, Col. Babcock was alleged to be guilty of a high criminal offense. He asked for a hearing in the same court, but was informed that he could not have it, because the evidence was closed. These circumstances had led him to demand a Court of Inquiry, as tho only means of vindication that was left. Since then he has been formally indicted, and is now certain of getting that full and fair trial before an impartial jury wliich the laws of the country guarantee to all its citizens. The supposed necessity of convening a military court for the determination of his guilt or innocence no longer exists. It is not believod that our action as a military tribunal can oust the jurisdiction of the coiu’t in which the indictment is pending. The President has said, through the Attorney General, that such was not the intention. Then tho trial at St. Louis and this inquiry. must go on at the same time, unless we await the result of the inquiry' there. The difficulties are very formidable. The accused must be present at the trial of the indictment. Shall we proceed and hear the cause behind liis back, or shall we vex him with two trials at once? The injustice of this is manifest-.

I presume from tho nature of the case that, the evidence is very voluminous, consisting of records, papers and oral testimony. Can we compel the production of these while they are wanted lor the purposes of the trial at St. Louis? Certainly not, if the military be, as tlic constitution declares, subordinate to tbe civil Authorities. Shall we proceed without evidence, and give an opinion in ignorance of the facts? That cannot be t-lie wish of anybody. I take it for granted that the trial atSt. Louis will be fair, as well as legal, and that the judgment, will be according to the very truth and justice of the cause. It will, without question, be binding and conclusive upon us, upon the Government, upon the accused, and upon the world. If lie should be convicted, no decision of ours could rescuo him from the hands of the law. If he is acquitted, our belief in his innocence will be of no consequence. If we anticipate the trial in the civil court, our judgment, whether for the accused or against him, will have- and ought to have, no effect upon the jurors. It cannot even be made known to them, and any attempt to influence them by it would justly tie regarded as an obstruction of public justice. On the other hand, his conviction there would be conclusive evidence of his guilt, and his acquittal will relieve him of the necessity of showing anything but the record. Ido not propose to postpone indefinitely, but simply to adjourn from day to day until the evidence upon the subject of our inquiry shall receive that definite and conclusive shape which will be impressed upon it by the verdict of tho jury, or until our action, having been reftrred to the War Department, with our opinion that our proceedings should be stayed during the proceedings of the court of law, shall have been confirmed. In case of acquittal by the civil court, the functions of this court will not necessarily have terminated. The accused may be pronounced innocent of any crime against the statute, and yet be guilty of some .act which the military law might punish by expulsion from the army. In case of acquittal, he may insist upon showing to us that he has done nothing inconsistent with “the conduct of an officer and a gentleman,’ as the article of war runs ; but the great and important question is, “ Guilty or not in manner and formas lie stands indicted?” and this can be legally answered only by a jury of liis country.

GEN. HANCOCK DECLINES TO INTERFERE IN CIVIL CONTROVERSIES -ARBITRARY I’OWER HAS NO BUSINESS HERE —IT IS RESTRAINED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Applications have been made at these headquarters implying the existence of an arbitrary authority in the commanding General touching purely civil controversies. One petitioner solicits this action, another that, and each ref era to some special considerations of grace or favor which he supposes to exist, and which should ihfluence this department. The number of such applications and the waste of time they involve make it necessary to declare that the administration of civil justice appertains to the regular courts. The rights of litigants do not depend upon the views of the General—they are to be adjudged And settled according to the laws. Arbitrary power, such as he has been urged to assume, has no existence here. It is not found in the laws of Louisiana or of. Texas; it cannot be derived from any act or acts of Congress; it is restrained by a constitution and prohibited from action in many particulars. The Major General commanding takes occasion to repeat that, while disclaiming judicial functions in civil cases, he can suffer no forcible resistance to the execution of the processes of the court*.