|

no right to make a blockade at New Orleans | Congress, and, in the long debates which folor Charleston more than at Chicago. He also lowed, there was not the least intimation that read from a speech of Daniel Webster, delivered the power belonged to the executive. I then in 1832, declaring that General Jackson had no point to the Constitution and ask Senators from right to blockade Charleston. He said he ap- what clause they deduce the right, by any fair proved these sentiments, uttered by these emi-construction of the instrument itself, what part nent statesmen, who were formerly regarded as confers the power on the President? Surely sound, and thought the time would again come not that clause which enjoins him to take care when it would not be thought treason to main- of the Constitution and the laws, and faithfully tain them. The resolution proceeds to approve to execute them. The most eminent commenthe act of the President enlisting men for three tators of the Constitution declare it to be a and five years. By what authority of the Con- legislative right. The opinion of the present stitution and law has he done this? The power Chief-Justice, which has never been answered, is not in the Constitution, nor granted by law. makes all further argument idle and superTherefore, it must be illegal and unconstitu- fluous; and one of the worst signs of the times tional. Again, the President, by his own will, is the manner in which that opinion has been has added immensely to the army, whereas the received. A subordinate military officer in BalConstitution says Congress only have power to timore arrests a private citizen and confines raise armies. He has also added to the navy him in a fortress. His friends get a writ of haagainst the warrant of the Constitution. These beas corpus, but it cannot be executed. The acts are not defended on constitutional or Chief-Justice then gives an opinion, which is legal grounds, and Mr. Breckenridge pronounc- commended, not only by the profession of ed them usurpations. which he is so great an ornament, but by all thoughtful men in the country. The newspapers of the country, and the men excited by violent passions, have denounced the ChiefJustice, but have not answered his opinion. There it stands, one of those productions which will add to his renown. The abuse of the press, and the refusal to respect just authority, and the attempt to make that high judicial officer odious, will yet recoil on these men. I honor him for the courage with which he did his duty, as well as for the calm and temperate manner in which he performed it. I am glad he yet remains among us, a man so remarkable for his honored length of years, and his eminent public services, and for the rectitude of his private life, that he may be justly ranked among the most illustrious Americans of our day. You propose to make this act of the President valid without making a defence of it, either on legal or constitutional grounds? What would be the effect? In thus approving what the President has done in the past, you invite him to do the like in the future, and the law of the country will lie prostrate at the feet of the executive, and in his discretion he may

This resolution goes on to recite that the President has suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and proposes to ratify and make that valid. We have a great deal to talk about rights-the rights of States, the rights of individuals, and some of them have been said to be shadowy and imaginary, but the right of every citizen to be arrested only by a warrant of law, and his right to have his body brought before a judicial authority, in order that the grounds of that arrest may be determined on, is a real right. There can be no dispute about that. It is the right of rights to all, high, low, rich, or poor. It is especially the right of that class which his Excellency, the President, calls plain people. It is a right, the respect for which is a measure of progress and civilization. It is a right that has been struggled for, fought for, guarded by laws, and backed up in constitutions. To have maintained it by arms, to have suffered for it, then to have it established on foundations so immutable that the authority of the sovereign could not shake it, is the chief glory of the British people, from whom we derive it. In England the legislative power alone can suspend that right. The monarch of Eng-substitute the military power for judicial authorland cannot suspend it. But the trans-Atlantic freemen seem to be eager to approve and ratify acts which a European monarch dare not perform. It needs no legal argument to show that the President dare not, cannot, suspend the writ of habeas corpus. I content myself with referring to the fact, that it is classed among the legislative powers by the Constitution. And that article conferring powers on the President touches not the question. I may add that upon no occasion has it ever been asserted in Congress, so far as I recollect, that this power exists on the part of the executive. On one occasion Mr. Jefferson thought the time had arrived when the writ might be suspended, but he did not undertake to do it himself, and did not even recommend it. He submitted it to

ity. Again, Mr. President, although there are few of us here who take the view of the Constitution by this right which I am advocating to-day, I trust we will not, under any circumstances, fail to protest in temperate but manly language against what we consider a usurpation of the President. Let me call the attention of the Senate briefly to other acts against which I protest in the name of the Constitution, and the people I represent. You have practically martial law all over this land. The houses of private citizens are searched without warrant of law. The right of the citizen to bear arms, is rendered nugatory by their being taken from him without judicial process, and upon mere suspicion. Individuals are seized without legal warrant, and imprisoned. The other day, since

Congress met, a military officer in Baltimore | newspaper office in that city, removed the was appointed a marshal of that city. Will any types, and declared that the paper should be man defend the act? Does it not override all no longer published, and gave, among other other law? Is it not substituting the rule of a reasons, that it was fabricating reports injumilitary commander for the laws of the land?rious to the United States soldiers in Missouri. What more authority has this officer to appoint a marshal for the city of Baltimore than he had to appoint a pastor for one of their congregations, or a president for one of their banks? The Constitution guards the people against any seizure without a warrant of judicial authority. Has not the President of the United States, by one broad, sweeping act, laid his hands upon the private correspondence of the whole community? Who defends it, as conformable to the Constitution? I am told, sir, and if I had the power I would offer a resolution to inquire into it, in the name of the public liberties-I am told that at this moment, in the jail in this city, there are individuals who have been taken by military authorities from Maryland and other States, and now lie here and cannot get out, and in some instances they have actually been forgotten. I was told of one instance, where a man was put in jail here and forgotten. His friends made application at one of the departments, and they looked into the case and found nothing against him, and he was discharged. But, in the rush of events, the very existence of this man, and the cause of his imprisonment, was forgotten. We may have this joint resolution to approve these acts and make them valid, but we cannot make them valid in fact. I know that Congress, in the exercise of its legislative functions, may appropriate money, but it has been expended by the President without warrant of law. But whatever unconstitutional act he may have committed cannot be cured by a joint resolution. It stands there, and will stand forever. Nor can this Congress prevent a succeeding Congress from holding any officer of the Government responsible for a violation of the Constitution. I enumerate what I regard as the usurpations of the executive, and against which I wish to record the protest of those who are unwilling to see the Constitution subverted, under whatever pretext, necessity, or otherwise. [Mr. B. then re-enumerated the several acts in the resolution, to which he had referred.] These great fundamental rights, sir, the sanctity of which is the measure of progress and civilization, have been trampled under foot by the military, and are being now trampled under foot every day in the presence of the two houses of Congress; and yet so great, on one side, is the passion of the hour, and so astonishing the stupid amazement on the other, that we take. it as natural, as right, and as of course. We are rushing, sir, and with rapid strides, from a Constitutional Government into a military despotism. The Constitution says the freedom of speech and of the press shall not be abridged, yet, three days ago, in the city of St. Louis, a military officer with four hundred soldiers that was his warrant went into a

Is there a Senator here, a citizen of this land,
who will say that the slightest color of author-
ity exists on the part of a military officer for
depriving a citizen of liberty or property with-
out a warrant of law, or to suppress the free-
dom of the press? And we are told by the
same despatch that the proprietors of the paper
submitted, and intended to make an appeal.
To whom? To the judicial authorities? No,
sir, but to Major-General Fremont, when he
should reach St. Louis. The civil authorities
of the country are paralyzed, and practical mar-
tial law is being established all over the land.
The like never happened in this country be-
fore, and it would not be tolerated in any
country in Europe which pretends to the ele-
ments of civilization and liberty. George
Washington carried the thirteen colonies
through the war of the Revolution without
martial law. The President of the United
States could not conduct the Government three
months without resorting to it. I presume
every Senator has read the opinion of the Chief-
Justice to which I have referred. I shall con-
tent myself with reading a few extracts, to
present my opinions on the subject. [Mr. B.
read from the closing part of Judge Taney's
opinion.] Thus the President has assumed the
legislative and judicial powers, and concen-
trated in his hands the executive, legislative,
and judicial powers, which in every age have
been the very evidence of despotism, and he
exercises them to-day, while we sit in the
Senate chamber, and the other branch of the
Legislature at the other end of the capitol. Mr.
President, what is the excuse-v
-what is the
justification,-necessity? I answer, first, that
there was no necessity. Was it necessary to
preserve the visible emblems of Federal author-
ity here, that the Southern coast should have
been blockaded? Did not the same necessity
exist when Congress, at the last session, refused
to pass the force bill? Was it necessary to the
existence of the Union, till Congress should
meet, that powers not conferred by the Consti-
tution should be assumed? Was there a neces-
sity for overrunning the State of Missouri?
Was there a necessity for raising the largest
army ever assembled on the American conti-
nent, and for collecting the largest fleet ever
collected in an American harbor? Congress
may deem it was necessary in contemplation
of a protracted struggle for the preservation of
the Constitution and the Union. What I mean
to say is, that there was none of that overrul-
ing necessity for present preservation which
may apply to usurpations of the Constitution.
In the case of the man in Maryland who was
confined so long in Fort McHenry, was there
any necessity of confining him, instead of turn-
ing him over to the civil authorities? The

chief charge was, that weeks before he had | putting, so far as we can, in the hands of the been concerned in treasonable acts. Was not President of the United States, the power of a the judicial authority there to take charge of dictator. With such a beginning as this, what him, and, if convicted, to punish him? If there are we to expect in the future? When we see was a necessity in the present state of affairs, men imprisoned within hail of the capitol, and Congress in session here, then what a long without warrant, and Congress in session, and necessity we have before us and impending the courts paralyzed, and Congress not rising in over us. Let Congress approve and ratify these a protest of indignant terms against it, we may asts, and there may occur a necessity which well be filled with gloomy forebodings for the will justify the President in superseding the future. What may we expect, except a line of law in every State in this Union, and there will conduct in keeping with what has been done? not be a vestige of civil authority left to raise Is this a contest to preserve the Union? If so, against this usurpation of military power. But then it should be waged in a constitutional I deny this doctrine of necessity. I deny that manner. Is the doctrine to obtain that provthe President of the United States may violate inces are to be entirely subordinated to the the Constitution upon the ground of necessity. idea of political unity? Shall the rallying cry The doctrine is utterly subversive of the Con- be, the Constitution and the Union, or are we stitution. It substitutes the will of one man prepared to say that the Constitution is gone, for a written Constitution. The Government but the Union survives? What sort of a Union of the United States, which draws its life from would it be? Let this principle be announced, the Constitution, does not rest upon an implied and let us carry on this contest with this spirit, consent. It rests upon an express and written winking at or approving the violations of this consent, and the Government may exercise such sacred instrument, and the people will soon bepowers and such only as are given in this writ-gin to inquire what will become of our liberties ten form of government. The people of these at the end of the experiment? The pregnant States conferred on this agent of theirs just question for us to decide is, whether the Consuch powers as they deemed necessary. All stitution is to be respected in this struggle, or others were retained. The Constitution was whether we are called upon to follow the flag made for all contingencies-for peace, and for over the ruins of the Constitution? I believe, war; and they conferred all the power they without questioning the motives of any, the deemed necessary, and more cannot be assum- whole tendency of the present proceedings is to ed. If the powers be not sufficient, still none establish a government without limitations, and others were granted, and none others can be radically to change our frame and character of exercised. Will this be denied? Is the idea Government. I was told the other day by a to be advanced that all constitutional questions distinguished American, that many Americans are to be made subordinate entirely to the abroad, when asked this question about the presopinions and ideas that may prevail at the hour ent condition of things here, "We thought your with reference to political unity? It has been Federal Government rested on consent, and how held heretofore, and I thought it was axiomatic do you propose to maintain it by force?" the and received by the world, that the terms of answer would often be, "It was intended to rest the Constitution of the United States were the on consent, but it has failed. It is not strong measure of power on the one side, and of obe-enough, and we intend to make it strong dience on the other. Let us take care how we enough, and to change the character of the establish a principle that, under any presumed Government, and we will give it all the stress of circumstances, powers not granted strength we deem essential without regard to may be assumed. Take care and do not fur- the provisions of the Constitution, which was nish an argument to the world and history, that made some eighty years ago, and has been it shall not respect that authority which no found not fit for the present condition of longer respects its own limitations. These are affairs." I think it is well that the attention a few of the reasons that will control my vote of the country should be called to the tendency against this resolution. I hope it will be voted of things. I know there are thoughtful conserupon, and if it should receive a majority, as Ivative men-thousands of men who love the fear it will, it will be an invitation to the Presi- Constitution-scattered through the adhering dent of the United States, in the absence of all States, who would never consent to make this legislation, to do the acts whenever, in his contest with any purpose to interfere with the opinion, it may be necessary. What will be personal rights of political communities. He the effect of it in Kentucky, and Missouri, and then referred to a suggestion in a Northern paelsewhere? In his discretion he will feel him- per that a change in the character of the Govself warranted in subordinating the civil to the ernment was contemplated, and also a speech military power, and to imprison citizens with- made by the present Secretary of War, in which out the warrant of law, and to suspend the writhe said the Southern States must be subdued, of habeas corpus, and establish martial law, to make searches and suppress the press, and to do all those acts which rest on the will and authority of a military commander. In my judgment, if we pass this, we are on the eve of

and, at the end of this contest, there would be no Virginians, as such, or Carolinians, but all would be Americans. I call on Senators to defend the constitutionality of these acts, or else admit that they carry on this contest without