Page images
PDF
EPUB

1

risk the suspension of the sacred writ of habeas corpus under any circumstances. The record shows that even seven states, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, voted for the clause as adopted, while three states, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, voted against the last clause-they being opposed to any suspension of the writ, under any circumstances. Three states were absent.

JUDE CURTIS ON LOYALTY AND HABEAS

CORPUS.

The Hon. GEORGE TICKNER CURTIS, formerly of Boston, now of New York, and one of the soundest jurists in the land, addressed the Democratic Union Association of New York city on the 28th of March, 1863. We are almost tempted to give his remarks entire, lengthy as they were, but our space allotted will not permit us. The following should be read by everybody:

[ocr errors]

perverted by many who are not good. I mean
the subject of 'loyalty.' The word itself, at
least in the sense in which it is used in those
countries from which we have borrowed it, can
scarcely be said to have an appropriate politi-
cal and social system. But it is a word at pres-
ent in great use among us; and we must take
it as we find it, and are bound to enquire what
are the moral duties which i
just and true
signification embraces. The injury and the
ing out the doctrines which are now forced up-
certain consequences of accepting and follow-
on us will form the topics of my discourse to-
night.

[ocr errors]

از

The true conditions of American loyalty are not to be found in the passionate exactions of partizan leaders, or in the frantic declamations of the pulpit, the rostrum or the press.. (Cheers.) People who do not like my politi-cal opinions may howl at me the epithet dis-loyal, but when they have thrown this missilethey have not taken a step towards defining to me and to others, what the true conditions of loyalty are. It is important that this step should be taken; for, whether we are to go on or to cease, in this course of idle and unmeaning abuse, it concerns us all to know what measure of public duty may rightfully be exacted of us. To know the length and depth of of those great virtues which are comprehended in the term 'patriotism'-to feel at once that "No man, who does not join in a wild, un- they are seated in our affections, and enthroned discriminating support of the measures and in our reason-is, to 'get wisdom and underdogmas of a dominant party, can hope to es- standing,' in the largest of earthly possessions. cape detraction and obloquy. The utmost ex-(Great applause.) The true conditions of ertions are made to suppress ordinary freedom American loyalty are to be found in the instiof speech; every device is employed to misrep- tutions under which we live; in the duties resent, and every effort is made to misunder- flowing from the Constitution of our country; stand the purposes of those who are not in po- (applause) in the political system which we litical power. The vocabulary of political have inherited from our fathers, with all its slang is exhausted to find terms of reproach manifold relations, through which we may and infamy with which to stigmatize men whose trace the clear dividing line that separates motives have in their favor all the ordinary perfect from imperfect obligations. (Cheers.) presumptions of purity, and whose arguments "The text of our fundamental law is the and opinions are at least entitled to a respect- guide, and the sole guide, in all ethical inquiTo that ful hearing. This process, which has been go- ries into the duties of the citizen. ing on for many months with violence unexsource all must come, rulers and people alike; ampled, even among a people whose political to that fountain all must resort. The vague discourses are never marked by too much tem- and shifting standards that are drawn from perance, has culminated from time to time in supposed dangers to what is called the 'nationoutrages upon the rights of persons and prop-al life,' or which spring from the conflicting erty, and may do so again. It is no time when one would choose to utter opinions without being impelled by a strong sense of duty.

[ocr errors]

"But, if we are not prepared to suffer for our convictions, they must be very humble convictions. If we do not love our country and its institutions well enough to encounter all the hazards that may attend an honest effort to save them, our love must be cold, indeed. Such I am sure is not your case or mine. (Applause.) Meaning to utter here nothing but words of truth and soberness-the truth as I hold it, in the soberness that becomes me to accept all the responsibility to public opinion which may justly fall thereon.

"I propose to speak to you to-night upon a subject which seems to me to be strangely misapprehend by many good men, and strangely

;

.

judgments of man respecting public necessities, can determine nothing. Those things can furnish no rule. We must have a rule, for loyalty is a moral duty; and it must, therefore, be capable of definition. A people whose 'national life? exists only by virtue of a written necessity, can find no rule of loyalty in any of the necessities that lie out of, or beyond the written necessity, can find no rule of loyalty in any of the necessities which their constitution of Government does not cover. They may find grounds of expediency in one or other supposed necessity for destroying their constitution; but, it would be extremely absurd to say that this expediency could be made the object of their loyalty.' Let us go, then, to the fountain head-the source of all national obligations.

"The Constitution of the United States itself

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

prescribes the full measure of our loyalty, in tional life anywhere else-then, the rights these words:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

which the Constitution reserves to the states or the people are equally comprehended it that life, for they are equally declared to be parts of the supreme law of the land. For this reason, all idea of a supremacy of the national rights, or powers or interests, when found

tion, is purely visionary. No duty of ‘loyalty' can possibly be predicated on any claim that is not founded in the supreme law, and our 'loyalty' is not due to them. When we know what are the rights and powers reserved to the states or the people-and we know they are the whole residue of all possible political rights and powers-they are equally the objects of our loyalty' for the self same reason, namely― they are parts of the supreme law of the land. (Loud applause.)

"Observe how precise as well as comprehen✨sive this great rule of our duty is. It expressed on something not embraced in the Constitues without ambiguity the whole of our obligation toward the Federal Government. It makes a supreme law a law paramount to all other human laws-an obligation paramount to all other human obligations. It leaves no room whatever for the intrusion of another, or a rival claimant to our civil obedience. That claimant can neither be a person invested, or uninvested with office, nor an idea of, public necessity, nor an imaginary 'national life' beyond, or apart from the life created under the constitution. The only possible claimant of our obedience is the law; for, as that law is made supreme, all other demands or demandants upon our submission are of necessity excluded. (Loud cheers.)

"Again, the Constitution not only contains some political powers and rights granted to the Federal Government, and a reservation of all other political powers and rights to the states or the people, but it also embraces rights of "What, then, does this supreme law em- person and property, guaranteed to every citibrace? The text on which I am commenting zen in his individual capacity; and these are itself furnishes the answer, "This Constitu- equally made, not by implication, but expresstion,' it says-what this constitution contains, ly, parts of the same law of the land, and are and the laws that shall be made in conformity therefore equally the objects of our 'loyalty.' with it-these shall be the supreme law, rising All pretense, therefore, of any paramount auin authority above all other laws. No public thority in the Central Government to override necessities, save as they are embodied in the these personal rights of the citizen, or to claim Constitution-no 'national life,' save as it ex- our 'loyalty' in disregard of these co-ordinate ists under the Constitution-no legislation that parts of the supreme law, is a perversion of the is not in accordance with the Constitution-is very idea of American loyalty. (Cheers) As the supreme law; but what the Constitution well might the citizen claim, because the Conordains or authorizes, that is the public neces-stitution has made his personal rights part of sity-that is the national life, because it is the supreme civil obligation. (Applause.)

Such is the fundamental character of our political system, and so perfect is it in its consistency with itself, and with the rights of all who are subject to it, that it contains a machinery by which the conformity of all acts of the Government with the principles of the Constitution may be peacefully tested, without forcible resistance. If the acts of the Government are complained of as unconstitutional, they may be brought to a judicial test, or the people may themselves pass upon them at the ballot box through the instrumentality of frequent elections. (Applause.)

I

"Now, when we look into the Constitution of our country, to discover the full scope of the obligations which are embraced in the supreme law of the land, we find that it grants certain political powers and rights to the contral or national government, and reserves all other political powers and rights to the states or the people. Hence, it is plain that the reserved rights of the people are just as much comprehended within the duty of our allegiance-just as much for the rightful objects of our 'loyalty' as the powers and rights presented in the national government. If the political existence created by the Constitution is the 'national life, called into being by the supreme law of the land and he would be a bold and reckless sophist who should undertake to find that na

the supreme law, that therefore, the loyalty of his neighbor is due to him alone, as the Government can claim that loyalty, is due solely, or chiefly, or principally, or ultimately, to the functions it is appointed to perform.The rights of the Government, the rights of the states, and the rights of individuals, all and equally, are comprehended in the supreme law of the land, and our loyalty is due to that law-to the whole and to every part of it-and public officers are in the same sense, and for the same reason, bound to obey every 'jot and tittle of it.' (Great applause.)

"These provisions are very plain and familiar; too familiar, perhaps you will say, to require to be stated. The extravagant language and ideas that are current in the mouths of even sensible people, on this subject of loyalty, would have exceeded all capacity of belief, in any other period than this. If one were to undertake to reduce their language and their ideas to something like a definite, moral proposition, it would be found that the doctrine is something like this:—In a time of war, when there are great public dangers, the rights of States and of individuals, must give way, and if those who administer the government are satisfied that the public necessity requires them to use powers that transcend the limits of the constitution, he who does not acquiesce in their judgment, or who questions their authority, to do particular acts, is a "disloyal" citi

zen.

war.

measure of the powers that were conferred upon that Government. (Cheers.) I use this language deliberately. I affirm that when the Constitution repeated the words of Magna Charta, not as a statute, but as a fixed provision of the fundamental law, and declared that no person shall bedeprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,' it meant to make a rule for all times and all circumstances-shutting the door forever against any supposed 'public necessity,' for violating the citizen's rights.* In like manner, I affirm that 'seces-citizen's the Constitution reserved to the states or the people all political power not granted to the Federal Government, it meant to preclude every ground of 'necessity' for the assumption by that Government of the powers thus withheld. (Applause.)

(Laughter.) This statement of the doc-| trine is the best I know how to make, for I know not how else to interpret or to apply the denunciations which we find in the proceedings of public meetings, in the columns of party newspapers, and in the common speech and action of very many persons. I need only point to the utter prohibition that is attempted to be placed on all discussion of any plan for bringing this dreadful war to a close, except by the particular method of fighting; or to the manner in which the terms 'traitor' and 'secessionist' are hurled at all who question the authority and lawfulness of the methods pursued by the government in the prosecution of the For myself, I do not profess to have, as yet a definite idea concerning several of the modes in which a peace might be sought. But I know not what right I have, legally, or morally, to say that my neighbor shall not discuss such a question, or shall not act upon it at the polls, or shall be denounced as 'disloyal' because his opinions on the subject differ from mine. It is to me very plain that this whole effort of a dominant party to control opinion by such means, can, under such institutions as ours, lead to but one of two results-the establishment of a despotism of a very bad kind, or the overthrow of the power of those who resort to such methods. Either the institutions of the country will perish, or the party which undertakes to repress all freedom of discussion will perish. (Cheers.) I hope we shall make up our minds to destroy the party and save the institutions. (Great applause. "We will do it.') But of this hereafter.

"Let me return to this new doctrine of 'loyalty,' which requires us to acquiesce in silence in the judgment of public servants, as to what the public necessities require, even to the extent of overlooking great infractions of the Constitution: This doctrine entirely ignores the purpose for which the Constitution imposed certain stringent limitations on the powers of the National Government. In order to explain this, it will be necessary to descend from general reasoning to particular illustrations.

"In fact, the idea of a written constitutiona fixed and supreme law-is utterly irreconcilable with the theory that the administrators of such a government can resort to their own judgment of 'public necessity,' and act contrary to that supreme law, and that good citizenship requires the people to acquiesce in that judgment. They who set up such a claim for our rulers, claim for them an entirely irresponsible power. power. We are required, for example, to believe that what are called 'arbitrary arrests,' are 'necessary,' but no one explains to us the grounds of that 'necessity.' No account is rendered. We are to assume the existence of causes of justification, but no one tells us what these causes are. They may remain forever locked in the bosomes of those who do the acts of which we complain. Why should American citizens, filling high places of public trust, act upon such a principle as this? Can anything be more degrading-more injurious to the public conscience of a people than to form a habit of implicit belief in the existence of necessities which nobody explains, and of which nobody is required to give an account? You may hear a hundred men in a day, speaking of some particular case of this kind, profess its necessity, and not one man in the whole hund

*It is in my opinion a monstrous fallacy to suppose that the implied authority for suspending the writ of habeas citizens, without judicial process. This implied authority pow-corpus warrants indefinitely the arrest and detention of citizens, without judicial process. This implied authority was given in the original constitution, but after the adoption of that instrument, the people came forward and annexed to it the prohibition of Magna Charta, making that provision a part of the supreme law. The two clauses of the constitution must therefore be so construed and applied as not to render nugatory the one last adopted, and so as to give effect to its strongest declarations. These clauses can be reconciled only by such a course of legislation and executive action as will preserve the operation of both.

"The Constitution, after enforcing certain defined political powers upon the Federal Government, declares that all other political powers are reserved to the States or the people. And it further secures to every citizen inalienable rights of person, forever, beyond all possible control of the Government. Now, does any one suppose that this was done without a purpose? Does any one believe that it was done for what is vulgarly called buncombe? Do you believe that it was done with mental reservation of the doctrine of 'public necessity' standing behind the Constitution, and ready to strike it down from its supreme control over us and our affairs? Let me suggest to you, my fellow citizens, that you cannot study the Constitution, and the purposes of the great generation who made it, without seeing that the very object of all this careful provision for rights that were placed beyond the reach of the Central Government, was to exclude forever this doctrine of 'public necessity' as a

If, under peculiar circumstances of imminent danger, the actual seizures made without judicial process, the prisoner should be immediately charged with an offense by warrant, and then a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus may intervene to prevent his discharge from the imprisonment, for causes which would operate to discharge him, if the writ was not suspended. This is the only course of legislation, in my opinion, that can be consistent with all the provisions of the constitution. I do not see how it is possible to contend that a continual imprisonment, founded on mere executive seizure can be authorized by taking away the writ of habeas corpus. If Magna Charta had not been interposed, there might have been some ground for this pretension, for then there would have been no necessity for process at any time.

to

red can tell you what the necessity was! | (Laughter and applause.) "My friends, these false theories of 'loyalty' for false I must deem them-are infusing inour national character a fatal poison. They are leading those who cherish them to impute factious and interested motives to all pure and manly efforts in defense of the principles of civil liberty. They who indulge in this dangerous work-of deriding the defenders of constitutional rights, can have but a very inadequate conception of the convulsions that must precede the final loss of these rights. They take but a very superficial view of the depth of those feelings which lead men in all free countries to resist every form of mere arbitrary power. They make no account of the principles implanted in our breasts, and cherished into dictates of nature by generations of training in the practice of liberty. These principles on which depend the primary office of an opposition in a free government, and by means of which all constitutional rulers are restrained from abuses of power. Impatient of those restraints, such persons rush to methods which cannot be employed without undermining the foundations of liberty. And, for a supposed themporary advantage, barter away the strength and the supports that sustain the vigor of the body politic. This has been in all ages the downward course of nations, who have substituted for free institutions and systems of fundamental law, a blind and unquestioning faith in 'public necessities,' and have then welcomed some despotic power. Thus did the Roman Empire succeed the Republic, and thus we may be preparing ourselves for a like destiny. Let us be warned in time.

[ocr errors]

"I have endeavored to state with due precision and fairness one very important part of the conditions of a true loyalty, but I should leave this subject in an imperfect state, if I omitted, on the other hand, to give equal prominence to certain principles of our political system which limit the mode in which states and individuals are to exercise their constitutional rights of opposition to the measures of the Federal government. I have briefly adverted to this already, but a more extended statement of the principle is necessary.

"I will assume then, that a measure, having all the forms of law, is believed upon good grounds, to be a violation of the constitutional rights of States and individuals. What is the rule of action under such circumstances? There is no difficulty whatever, in finding the answer. [The Republican leaders would say 'revolutionize the government.'] By the establishment of a judicial system within the Federal constitution, having ultimate cognizance of all cases arising under that constitution, one mode is provided by which both states and individuals can ascertain whether their reserved rights are invaded by the Federal authorities. [Now, mark the difference between Democrats and Republicans as to the 'mode and measure of redress.'] This remedy is at all times open, and there is no valid reason why a state should forcibly assert its constitu

tional rights any more than that an individual should do the same thing. While a state remains a member of the Union, it is bound to vindicate its constitutional rights and powers in that mode which is consistent with the preservation of that Union, and it can at any time under any supposed violation of its rights, or the rights of its people, make a case for judicial determination, Forcible resistance such as Wisconsin and Massachusetts were guilty of] is open revolution, and nothing but an intolerable oppression, cutting off all judicial remedy, can make a revolution a necessity and a duty. (Applause.)

"Again, there is another equally good reason which shows that no popular tumults, and no forcible resistance are either legally or morally justifiable while the ballot box remains untouched. If the people of all the states had reason to believe that measures of the Federal· Government are subversive of the Constitution, it is their right to correct the evil by change of their rulers. (Cheers.) In cases of supposed extensive violation of the Constitution, to which the attention of the whole country is called, the remedy of elections is ordinarily to reverse, and is in our system held to reverse erroneous constructions of that instrument, as well as errors of policy. The popular tribunal may not be quite so precise in its action as the judicial, but there can be no mistaking the judgment of the people when it is pronounced upon an issue clearly made, with an Administration which is charged with infringing the Constitution. (Great applause.)

[ocr errors]

"These principles, no one I presume, will be inclined to dispute, but there is thrust in to intercept their application to the present crisis in our affairs, a doctrine which I for one, distinctly repudiate. That doctrine is in substance, that all questioning of the measures of the Administration should be postponed while we are in a civil war-that there should be but one party, and that all should rally, to an 'unconditional support' of the constitutional authorities. This dogma needs examination. If by an 'unconditional support' of the constituted authorities it is intended to claim that we must all recognize the fact that we are engaged in a civil war, and that we must conduct it while it lasts through those authorities, and must hold no irregular intercourse with the public enemy, I readily accede to the propesition; but, if it is meant that we are not to question the methods which the Administration pursues in the prosecution of the warwar-that we have no rightful control over their measures—or that we are to refrain from demanding a change in their policy, I reject the doctrine without the slightest hesitation.”

S. P. CHASE'S OPINION OF "LOYALTY."" Mr. CHASE, the present Secretary of the Treasury, on the 26th of August, 1857, in a speech in Ohio thus gave his idea of rights which the Government could not invade:

"We have the right to have our state laws

obeyed. We don't mean to resist Federal authority. Just or unjust laws, properly admin istered, will be respected. If dissatisfied, we will go to the ballot box and redress our wrongs. But we have rights which the Federal Government must not invade right, superior to its power, on which our sovereignty depends, and we do mean to assert these rights against all tyranical assumptions of authority."

THE ROMAN LAW AND PERSONAL LIBERTY..

| tude" (of Union Leaguers, no doubt,) raised a hue and cry against PAUL. But the "Town Clerk" (no doubt a Democrat,) quieted the rabble by telling them if PAUL and his followers had committed anything against the law, the law should punish them. He said:

"Wherefore, if Demetrius and the craftsmen [contractors, in the original, no doubt,] which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies [law officers]; let them implead one another.

"But if ye imagine anything concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly."-Acts XIX-38, 39.

Again, when the clamoring Romans demanded Paul's life before Festus, one of the Supreme Judges, who, in relating the case to King Agrippa, said:

[ocr errors]

"It is not the manner [law] of the Romans to deliver any man to die before that he which is accused, have the accusers face to face and have license to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.??

The Romans had a keen and just appreciation of the liberty of their citizens-in war and in peace, the liberty of the Roman citizen was held sacred, and it would seem that our "rulers" in the latter part of the 19th century have gone back of the age of Roman liberality. By the Roman law no man could be condemned unheard, or thrust into prison without a trial, and an opportunity to meet his accusers "face to face." There were cases when the bigoted Romans, in persecuting the Christians, violated their laws in reference to this subject. The Christians of that day, like the Democrats of this era, were persecuted for opinion's sake. They took PAUL and SILAS, on one occasion, without process of law, and arbitrarily thrust them into prison. But God's power came to the aid of the Roman law-the jail trembled and was fearfully shaken the doors were opened, present with us, ye see this man about whom "King Agrippa, and all men which are here and the terrified jailor was thunderstruck to all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with find that his victims had not departed, and the me [they had probably called Paul a 'copperguilty persecutors, fearing a further demon-head'] both at Jerusalem, and also here, crying that he ought not to live any longer stration of God's wath, bad the prisoners go, [Equivalent to the bloodthirsty declarations of but PAUL being a good lawyer, and knowing he Senators Wilson and Jim Lane against the and his compatriot had been illegally dealt by, Democrats.]

"Said unto them, they [the persecutors] have beaten us openly, uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison, and now do they thrust us out privily? Nay, verily, but let them come themselves, and fetch us out.”

Our laws were borrowed from the Roman Pandects, which declared that no man should be 'scourged' (punished) uncondemned; and why should not our citizens be treated as fairly as PAUL insisted on being treated by his Jewish, Republican persecutors, who sought to punish him "uncondemned," as Mr. LINCOLN punishes Democrats?

Again, when PAUL was at Ephesus, a Roman silversmith, (no doubt a contractor,) by the name of DEMETRIUS, attempted to stir up sedition against him, because PAUL did not belong to his "party." He attempted to make the people believe that PAUL was in some way "opposing the Government," and the "multi

After His Honor, Judge Festus had laid the case before King Agrippa, the King desired to see this strange man, Paul, and Festus sent for him, and when Paul came into Agrippa's august presence, Judge Festus said:

4

The last verse, Acts XXVI, reads:

"For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a

person, and not without to signify the crimes laid against him."

Here was a Roman Judge, near 2,000 years ago, addressing his King, and declaring it not only unlawful, but unreasonable to arrest a man charged with no crime, and without giving him a fair trial, and the privilege of confronting his accusers face to face, and this, too, when the Romans were engaged in war.

Would to God that our President and his

party would read the New Testement, from
which they could drink in the inspiration of
reason, honor and law. Even the Jews had
fanaticism, than do our present rulers.
more respect for law, with all their religious

THE N. YORK INDEPENDENT RIGHT For once.

In speaking of the arbitrary arrests of the

« PreviousContinue »