"groundless and foolishness of the complaint," that is all moonshine, for no complaint was ever lodged against him, and this the Sentinel admits. From the start there was nothing charged against him, and this the Administration knew, for MAHONY was almost daily asking the Administration what he was arrested for. We never knew a weaker argument and a more atrocious case than is here presented. The organ says that "By aequitting without question the government confesses substantially he was guilty of no crime!" And the government knew this the moment he was incarcerated, as well as the moment when they gave the order for his release. We hardly think the Sentinel will claim that the government arrests its victims in hopes to hunt up afterwards charges against them. This would be re-enacting the bloody and damnable deeds of the old Conceigierre, in France, where they dug the graves, made the coffins, then sent out their provost marshals to hunt up the victims to fill them. "The moment he is found to be guilty of no crime," says this organ, "he is liberated." Now, how did the government arrive at the conclusion that he was innocent just at that particular time? No court or tribunal had been organized to determine the fact. No witnesses had been sworn-no charges preferred, and yet all at once-just after the election the Administration found out that MAHONY was guilty of no crime, and he was set at liberty! What a mockery of common sense and justice! From MAHONY's case, the Sentinel offers the Baby Act plea in reference to Mrs. BRINSMADE's case, as follows: "The case of Mrs. Brinsmade, in New York, is one in point. Some official, (it is not yet certain who, but supposed to be Marshal Kennedy,) took the responsibility of arresting Mrs. Brinsmade and locked her up. The case was finally brought to the attention of the authorities, and she was promptly released. None denounce the arrest more heartily and pointedly than the immediate friends of the Administration." Yes, yes, "some official" did take the responsibility-but he took it from the President's order commanding the arrest of all persons for "disloyal practices"—his appointees to be the sole judges. There is where the responsibility came from. Mrs. B's case "was finally brought to the attention of the authorities," eh? Yes, as soon as the elections, had opened their eyes and their ears, and set their hearts to palpitating, then they listened to the appeals of the poor, weak woman, and not before. If so flagitious and iniquitous an arrest had been made, and a young and beautiful female so long imprisoned in a common ward station house, without authority from headquarters, think you the scoundrel who did it would wear the star of office another hour? No, he would be instantly dismissed, and a decent man put in his place, but he is still kept in office, a sufficient fact to our mind to warrant the belief that he is wanted for other nasty jobs But, says the organ, "the immediate friends of the Administration denounce" these outrages, and therefore we must draw the inference that it is guileless. Some of them have denounced them since the election, but not before. We challenge a single case to prove they denounced them before election, but many Democrats did, and for doing so were callel "traitors" and "tories" by these same organs. Theirs is a death-bed repentance.The Ryan Address and Gov. SEYMOUR'S speech denounced these arbitrary and illegal arrests, and for doing so the Sentinel and other abolition sheets-before election-denounced RYAN and Gov. SEYMOUR. Again, says the Custom-House organ: "We have felt that a great many foolish, and even oppressive things were being done by these government agents. But the emergency of the government required the creation of agents of the character, and the evils complained of are almost inevitable and inseparable from their appointment. The government, itself, however, has shown no disposition to tyrannize. These agents will learn their duties and learn not to overstep the bounds of a sensible discretion; or, failing in that, will be speedily displaced, and their places filled with better men. We have seen no displacement of these bad men as yet. The first part of the above paragraph any man of sense and self-respect will say amen to. But it will be hard to convince any man of ordinary intelligence that any possible "emergency" has arisen, or is likely to arise, in the Northern States, whereby this new batch of officers are, or may be necessary. What act have they done, or can they do, (save to violate law and outrage personal rights,) that may not be done by U. S. Marshals, their deputies, or any other civil, executive officer?What possible necessity has arisen, or can arise, in all human probability, in the loyal states, making it necessary, or even excusable, to ar rest any man without "due process of law ?"- | after knowing all the facts, as he does now And, what necessity for arresting men without know them, at least, will not remove his apwarrant, and suspending the privilege of habe- pointees who are guilty of such gross outrages, as corpus, except it be the intention to "tyr- then he becomes personally the guilty party, annize" over men for their political opinion's and is inaugurating a system of despotism that sake? What possble harm could come to the may yet cost the loyal North seas of blood to government, to permit men to be arrested, when crush out, after it has fairly got a foothold. charged with some crime, and taken before some competent, civil tribunal, to be tried?— Does any one believe, a man thus arrested, in any loyal state, and proven guilty, would escape punishment? A bare suspicion of such a thing would be an imputation on the loyalty of citizen jurors, and the fidelity of our judiciary. We therefore insist, that, no matter what the original intentions, this Provost Marshal business is a gross imposition on the people-an imputation on their loyalty-a political engine, to force political action in violation of political opinions—and until we can be shown some necessity for it-the accomplishment of legitimate Government purposes, that cannot be accomplished by other means, we will denounce it in all its phases as not only "foolish" and "oppressive," but a disgrace to the nineteenth century. In view of the verdict of the people in the overwhelming political revolution, of '62, the Sentinel had gravely come to the following quite sensible conclusion: "The nature of our government, as well as the temper of the people, clearly' reveal the folly of any attempt at tyranny or abuse of power on the part of those entrusted with the administration." All of which we endorse without a but or an if. In conclusion, let us suggest, that if the Administration believes that Provost Marshals are necessary, and that it does not intend them to overawe the people in the exercise of their civil and political rights, would not the said Administration remove all incompetents as soon as their "foolish" incompetency was discovered? Few if any greater crimes can be committed against individual rights than to deprive a man of his liberty without cause. And yet, the President don't remove that miserable tyrant, Kennedy, who arrested Mrs. Brinsmade, nor the contemptible wretch that arrested Mahoney who, the Sentinel admits were arrested without cause. Now, if our peacable and law-abiding citizens are to be arrested and plunged into the filth and debris of a military prison, with not even a charge against them, and the President One word as to what the Sentinel says about the friends of the Administration condemning nel denounce the arrest of Mrs. BRINSMADE these "oppressive" outrages. Did the Sentibefore the election? Not a bit of it. On the other hand, if our memory is not at fault, it glorified in the arrest of a "she secessionist." Did the Sentinel or State Journal denounce the arrest of MAHONEY before the election?By no means; on the contrary, the latter did, even if the former did not, glory in the arrest of the "traitor MAHONEY." Now, that he is acknowledged to have been innocent, that Jacobin organ is mum. Not a note has it to sound against the outrage-but O, how the Abolition press howled when BoOTH and DANIELS, of Wisconsin, were arrested for crimes they gloried in-crimes of "positive defiance" to law, which are to-day the corner stone of the Republican platform of Wisconsin. Great God! is this that "liberty" we have heard preached so often from Republican pulpits? Is it that "freedom" so often harrangued from Republican rostrums? Is it that "free speech" so often sung in the Republican cloister and peddled through the columns of the Republican press? Is this party of boasted "freedom" about to turn the oppressors and enslavers of the white race, and impose upon it the necessities of becoming "hewers of wood and drawers of water" for Congo masters? Strange that a great party that no longer ago than 1860 had emblazoned on its victorious banners "Liberty and Freedom," should, at the first moment of its drunken success, raise the standard of worse than Roman slavery. Reader, beware, for we have the lesson of the Quakers to guide us, who for centuries preached religious "freedom" and "toleration,” and the moment they got the power, they went to hanging and persecuting all who did not believe in their dogmas. The case of Roger Williams is not forgotten-nor will the politi cal debaucheries and vile salvonic persecutions of Abolitionism be forgotten, so long as debased humanity may steal that oft abused word "Liberty," as a cloak for slavery and oppression. This chapter has been extended much beyond our original design, but the principles involved are of such vast importance, that we feel justified in going beyond that design, though the largest 12 mo. volume would not contain the half we had selected under this head. CHAPTER XXXI. DESPOTISM, USURPATIONS, INALIENABLE RIGHTS Despotism Seeks the Semblance of Loyalty...Solicitor of Commerce" on the Powers of the Provost Marshal... Case of Judge Constable... Liberated from the Bastile... Atrocious Sentiments by Senator Wilson... Cincinnati Prison Full...Other Acts of Despotism...General Conclusions... Vallandigham's Acts compared with Leading Republicans...Loyalty of Democrats... Disloyalty of Republicans...$500 Reward for a Disloyal Democrat Not Taken... The Writ of Habeas Corpus the Palladium of Our Liberties... Extracts of the Magna Charta-Wrung from King John... Lord Campbell's Boast... English Bill of Rights..." Body of Liberties" Brought by the Mayflower... The Bill in the Declaration... Virginia Bill of Rights...Massachusetts' "Declaration of Rights" in 1780... From Bill of Rights in Our Constitution...General Remarks on Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus... Law of Suspected Persons... A Leaf from French History, by Allison...Our Parallels... Thiers on French Confisca tion...Danton's Prediction...General Remarks... Black published for the information and guidance of all officers of this Bureau: "Arrest of Deserters-Habeas Corpus.-Opin ion. "It is enacted in the 7th section of the act approved March 3, 1863, entitled "An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes," that it shall be the duty of the Provost Marshals appointed under this act, 'to arrest all deserters, whether regu lars, volunteers, militia men, or persons called into the service under this or any other act of Congress, wherever they may be found, and to send them to the nearest military commander, or military post.' "If a writ of habeas corpus shall be issued by a State court, and served upon the Provost Marshal while he holds under arrest a desert er, before he has had opportunity 'to send him to the nearest military commander, or military post,' the Provost Marshal is not at liberty to disregard that process. It is the duty of the Marshal, or other person having custody of the prisoner, to make known to the Judge, or Court, by a proper return, the authority by which he holds him in custody. But after this return is made, and the State Judge or Court judicially apprised that the party is in custody under the authority of the United States, they can proceed no farther.' They then know that the prisoner is within the dominion and jurisdiction of another government, and that neither the writ of habeas corpus, nor any other process issued under state authority, can pass over the line of division between the two sovereignties. He is then within the dominion and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. If he has committed an offence against their laws, their tribunals alone can punish him. If he is wrongfully imprisoned, their judicial tribunals can release him and afford him redress. And, alstone on the English Habeas Corpus... Our Constitution though as we have said, it is the duty of the Applied...The Ordinance of 1787 Applicable... What Our Fathers Thought of it... Pinckney, Rutledge, Morris and marshal, or other person holding him, to make Millson on the Habeas Corpus...Judge Curtis on "Loy-known, by a proper return, the authority under alty and Habeas Corpus... A Scathing Speech... Mr. Chase's Opinion of Loyalty... The Roman Law and Per sonal Liberty...St, Paul on Arbitrary Violations of Law Judge Festus and King Agrippa Respected the Roman Law..." New York Independent" on Arbitrary Arrests ...What a Conservative Republican Thinks of it... President's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: His Proclamation...Congress on Arbitrary Arrests...Official Vote...Supreme Court of Wisconsin on Suspending the Writ. DESPOTISM SEEKS THE SEMBLANCE OF LE GALITY. It is very natural, and has been, in all ages of the world, for Despots to claim they were acting under legal authority. The following "opinion" by Solicitor WHITING is quite in point: "WAR DEPARTMENT, Circular, No. 36. "The following opinion of Hon. William Whiting, Solicitor of the War Department, is which he retains him, it is, at the same time, imperatively his duty to obey the process of the United States, to hold the prisoner in custody under it, and to refuse obedience to the mandate or process of any other government. And consequently, it is his duty not to take the prisoner, nor suffer him to be taken before a state judge or court upon a habeas corpus issued under state authority. No state judge or court, after they are judicially informed that the party is imprisoned under the authority of the United States, has any right to interfere with him, or require him to be brought before them. And if the authority of a state, in the form of judicial process or otherwise, should attempt to control the marshal, or other au thorized officer or agent of the United States, in any respect, in the custody of his prisoner, it would be his duty to resist it, and to call to his aid any force that might be necessary to maintain the authority of law against illegal interference. No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful au thority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued, and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence. "The language above cited is that of Chief Justice Taney in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Ableman vs. Booth. (21 Howard's Reports.) If a writ of habeas corpus shall have been sued out from a State Court, and served upon the Provost Marshal while he holds the deserter under arrest, and before he has had time or opportunity "To send him to the nearest military commander, or mili tary post," It is the duty of the Marshal to make to the Court a respectful statement, in writing, as a return upon the writ, setting forth, "1st. That the respondent is Provost Marshal, duly appointed by the President of the United States, in accordance with the provisions of the act aforesaid. "2d. That the person held was arrested by said Marshal as a deserter, in accordance with the provision of the 7th section of the act aforesaid. That it is the legal duty of the respondent to deliver over said deserter "to the nearest military commander, or military post," and that the respondent intends to perform such duty as soon as possible. 3d. "That the production of said deserter in court would be inconsistent with, and in violation of the duty of the respondent as provost marshal, and that the said deserter is now held under authority of the United States.For these reasons, and without intending any disrespect to the honorable Judge who issued procoss, he declines to produce said deserter, or to subject him to the process of the court." This shows to what desperation the authorsɔ f despotic power are reduced.x LAWS BY PROCLAMATION IN ENGLAND-OUR STAR CHAMBER. Lord SOMERS, in denouncing the despotism of the STUARTS, said: "We had a privy council in England, with great and mixed powers; we suffered under it long and much: All the rolls of Parliament are full of complaints and remedies; but none of them effectual till Charles the First's time. The Star Chamber was but a spawn of our council, and was called so only because it sat in the usual council chamber. It was set up as a formal court in the third year of Henry the Eighth, in very soft words, "To punish great riots, to restrain offenders too big for ordinary justice." * * * * * "But in a little time it made the nation tremble. The Privy Council came at last to make laws by proclamation, and the Star Chamber ruined those that would not obey." The arrest of actual deserters is well enough, and all courts should and would remand them whenever it appeared that they were deserters. But the great benefit of the writ is to ascertain the fact whether the accused were in truth deserters, or, whether in fact innocent men had not been arrested through mistake, or through the avaricious desire to get the bounty. The "To the foregoing, all other material facts may be added. Such return having been made, the juris-writ is not to encourage guilt, but to protect innocence. The following will illustrate the case in point: diction of the state court over that case ceases. If the state court shall proceed with the case and make any formal judgment in it, except that of dismissal, one of two courses may be taken. (1) The case may be carried up, by appeal or otherwise, to the highest court of the state, and removed therefrom by writ of error to the Supreme Court; or, (2) the judge may be personally dealt with in accordance with law, and with such instructions as may hereafter be issued in each case. "JAMES B. FRY, "Provost Marshal General." Now, to claim that Chief Justice TANEY, in the Booth-Ableman case, endorsed the arbitrary power claimed in the foregoing is one of the most abomniable stretches of Judicial license we have met with. Judge TANEY simply says that when a state court is made acquinted with the fact that a man is "imprisoned" under a "process of the United States," such state court can proceed no further. This is good law, and no sound lawyer will dispute it, but when the pettifoggers of the Administration ask us to assume that a military order is a judicial "process," such as C of Justice TANEY alluded to, it is asking are the can be granted [From the New York World, Nov. 3, 1863.] "KIDNAPPING IN NEW YORK. "An instance of the gross injustice which seems inseparable from the arbitrary military system inaugurated by Secretary Stanton has recently come to light. In October, 1861, sixty-two young men were induced to enlist in what they were told was 'Company L, Colonel Serrell's Regiment of Volunteer Engineers,' the pay being for privates seventeen dollars per month. The company, when organized, was, without authority of Governor Morgan, taken to Washington, where for several days neither the War Department nor the Generalin-Chief would recognize them. Subsequently, nated as Fourth New York Independent Batand without any new muster, they were desigtery. The men protested in writing, but in vain-the pay is thirteen dollars per month. They have been in eleven actions, and have distinguished themselves. They applied through counsel to the adjutant-general to be attached to Colonel Serrell's regiment, in pursuance of their enlistment, or to be discharged. This was refused; yet neither by statute nor army regulations have the government the power to transfer men from one arm of service to another in the volunteer service. ed, let it be proclaimed from the house tops "Shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without "Several of the men, feeling that they had been grossly wronged, after the battle of Gettysburg deserted and reached New York. A habeas corpus was taken out before Mr. Justice Clerke, they having been arrested as deserters by a sergeant of artillery. Justice Clerke discharged them from the Fourth Independent son, and others." Battery, for the reason that they never enlisted therein, and also from the service of the United States, for the reason that they were enlisted under false pretenses. A copy of this order, certified and under seal, was given to the men. Last week a government detective arrested one of these men, read the order, and sent the man to Governor's Island, from whence, it is said, he has been sent South. It is very clear that this is a flagrant instance of downright kidnapping, and that by no rule of equity can it be justified. It is monstrous that under our system of laws, in which there are so many provisions for guarding the rights of the citizen and insuring the faith of contracts, men can be compelled to do military service without the slightest regard to law, justice, or their personal rights. Congress ought to investigate this matter. WASHINGTON HUNT ON ARBITRARY ARRESTS. The people of New York, without distinction of party, met in Union Square, New York, in May, 1863, twenty-five thousand strong, to take into consideration the subject of personal liberty. There was speaking at four stands.The following letter was read, from Washington Hunt, whom our opponents have so often supported for high offices in the Empire State: THE CASE OF GEN. STONE. Stone, of the great wrong and injustice liable "We have a case in point, in that of Gen. to be done by arbitrary proceedings against individuals. Gen. Stone it is remembered, was arrested while in the exercise of a command, sent to one of the military prisons, denied information as to the cause of his arrest, and refused any opportunity to explain any proceedings of his own which might have seemed unusual. After several months of confinement, he was released without trial, and it is in the Department of the Gulf,—the President now announced that he was assigned to duty being satisfied, of course, that he was wrongfully arrested and imprisoned. How easily could this wrongful arrest and imprisonment have been avoided." BEECHER ON ARBITRARY ARRESTS. Even the most radical of all radicals; HENRY WARD BEECHER, sees danger ahead, in the way of arbitrary arrests. In speaking of VALLANDIGHAM's case he said: "It would be better for the country that ten thousand brave men were slain on the battle field, than that one should be deprived of even the least of his guarranteod rights at this time. The heart of the nation is in no mood to be thus despotically tampered with." LOCKPORT, May 16, 1863. "GENTLEMEN:-I have received your letter inviting me to attend the proposed meeting at Union Square. It is out of my power to come, but I wish to avail myself of the occasion to declare my emphatic condemnation of the recent attempts to subject the people of the loyal states to an irresponsible and arbitrary system of military domination. GETTING DOWN TO A NICE POINT. [From the New York World.] "We ask all candid liberty-loving American citizens of both parties if the following does not smack rather too much of Venice or Poland for this free country: "HEADQUARTERS MILITARY GOVERNOR, "Alexandria, Va., Sept. 16, 63. "While we are willing to submit to the greatest sacrifices, in a patriotic spirit, for the pres-"Proprietor Alexandria Gazette: ervation of the Union, it may as well be understood that we will not consent to be bereft of any of our constitutional rights. We have lost none of these rights in consequence of the southern rebellion. "The Administration ought to comprehend that it is amenable to public opinion, and that its conduct and policy are a legitimate subject of popular discussion and criticism. It is for the perpetuation of a free constitutional government, and for this only, that the country has been so willing to exhaust its best blood and place its vast resources at the disposal of the national authority. God forbid that the American people should allow the strength thus imparted to be turned against themselves, and a military despotism erected on the ruins of public liberty! So far as New York is concern "SIR:-Observing in your issue of this evening an article boldly headed 'Virginia Legislature,' which article contains the proceedings of the Confederate Legislature of Virginia, and hence, is a public recognition upon your part of a state government in Virginia opposed to the federal government, the general commanding directs me to inform you that the repetition of this act will be visited with a suspension of your paper. "The existence of a paper in Alexandria known to be hostile to the government he represents, will be tolerated so long only as there appears nothing in it offensive to Have not things come to a pretty pass when an American newspaper published within a few miles of the capital of the country is threatened with suppression, because the heading to some of the news displeases an ignorant military officer? The phrase "Virginia Legislature" is literally correct, no matter what the |