Decision of Judge Leavitt, of Ohio, in the Vallandigham Habeas Corpus Case

Front Cover
 

Selected pages

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 4 - All of which opinions and sentiments he well knew did aid, comfort and encourage those in arms against the Government, and could but induce in his hearers a distrust of their own Government and sympathy for those in arms against it, and a disposition to resist the laws of the land.
Page 13 - ... investigation has taken place, the result of which has not been made known to this Court. Whether the Military Commission for the trial of the charges against Mr. Vallandigham was legally constituted and had jurisdiction of the case, is not a question before this 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 were before the Court. The sole question is, whether the arrest was legal ; and, as...
Page 10 - President is correct, it undoubtedly implies the right to arrest persons, who, by their mischievous acts of disloyalty, impede or endanger the military operations of the government. And, if the necessity exists, I see no reason why the 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 can not discharge the duties in person.
Page 10 - 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 the 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...
Page 9 - It is clearly not a time," says Judge Leavitt, " when any one connected with the judicial department of the government should allow himself, except from the most stringent obligations of duty, to embarrass or thwart the Executive in his efforts to deliver the country from the dangers which press so heavily upon it.
Page 10 - Chief and which he justifies as a military necessity. It is perhaps not easy to define what acts are properly within this designation, but they must undoubtedly be limited to such as are necessary to the protection and preservation of the Government and the Constitution which the President has sworn to support and defend. And in deciding what he may rightfully do under this power where there is no express legislative declaration the President is guided solely by his own judgment and...
Page 4 - The petitioner does not state what the judgment of the Military Commission is, nor is the Court informed whether he has been condemned or acquitted on the charges exhibited against him. It 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 not grantable of course, and would only be allowed on a sufficient showing that it ought...
Page 7 - War, was not liable to arrest under or by military power. And the various provisions of the Constitution, intended to guard the citizen 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 they are familiar to every reader of the Constitution. And it may be conceded that if, by a just construction...
Page 5 - Rupert was substantially the same as that of the present petitioner. He set out in his petition, what he alleged to be an unlawful arrest 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 as 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 tending to disprove...
Page 14 - ... here, without subjecting myself to the charge of trenching upon the domain of political discussion, I may be indulged in the remark, that there is too much of the pestilential leaven of disloyalty in the community. There is a class of men in the loyal States who seem to have no just appreciation of the deep criminality of those who are in arms, avowedly for the overthrow of the government, and the establishment of a Southern Confederacy. They have not, I fear, risen to any right estimate of their...

Bibliographic information