the writings-6-第44部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！





This　is　precisely　our　present　casea　case　of　rebellion　wherein　the

public　safety　does　require　the　suspensionIndeed；　arrests　by　process

of　courts　and　arrests　in　cases　of　rebellion　do　not　proceed　altogether

upon　the　same　basis。　　The　former　is　directed　at　the　small　percentage

of　ordinary　and　continuous　perpetration　of　crime；　while　the　latter　is

directed　at　sudden　and　extensive　uprisings　against　the　government；

which；　at　most；　will　succeed　or　fail　in　no　great　length　of　time。　　In

the　latter　case　arrests　are　made　not　so　much　for　what　has　been　done

as　for　what　probably　would　be　done。　　The　latter　is　more　for　the

preventive　and　less　for　the　vindictive　than　the　former。　　In　such

cases　the　purposes　of　men　are　much　more　easily　understood　than　in

cases　of　ordinary　crime。　　The　man　who　stands　by　and　says　nothing　when

the　peril　of　his　government　is　discussed；　cannot　be　misunderstood。

If　not　hindered；　he　is　sure　to　help　the　enemy；　much　more　if　he　talks

ambiguouslytalks　for　his　country　with　〃buts；〃　and　〃ifs；〃　and

〃ands。〃　Of　how　little　value　the　constitutional　provision　I　have

quoted　will　be　rendered　if　arrests　shall　never　be　made　until　defined

crimes　shall　have　been　committed；　may　be　illustrated　by　a　few　notable

examples：　General　John　C。　Breckinridge；　General　Robert　E。　Lee；

General　Joseph　E。　Johnston；　General　John　B。　Magruder；　General　William

B。　Preston；　General　Simon　B。　Buckner；　and　Commodore　Franklin

Buchanan；　now　occupying　the　very　highest　places　in　the　rebel　war

service；　were　all　within　the　power　of　the　government　since　the

rebellion　began；　and　were　nearly　as　well　known　to　be　traitors　then　as

now。　　Unquestionably　if　we　had　seized　and　had　them　the　insurgent

cause　would　be　much　weaker。　　But　no　one　of　them　had　then　committed

any　crime　defined　in　the　law。　　　Every　one　of　them；　if　arrested；　would

have　been　discharged　on　habeas　corpus　were　the　writ　allowed　to

operate。　　In　view　of　these　and　similar　cases；　I　think　the　time　not

unlikely　to　come　when　I　shall　be　blamed　for　having　made　too　few

arrests　rather　than　too　many。



By　the　third　resolution　the　meeting　indicate　their　opinion　that

military　arrests　may　be　constitutional　in　localities　where　rebellion

actually　exists；　but　that　such　arrests　are　unconstitutional　in

localities　where　rebellion　or　insurrection　does　not　actually　exist。

They　insist　that　such　arrests　shall　not　be　made　〃outside　of　the　lines

of　necessary　military　occupation　and　the　scenes　of　insurrection。〃

Inasmuch；　however；　as　the　Constitution　itself　makes　no　such

distinction；　I　am　unable　to　believe　that　there　is　any　such

constitutional　distinction。　　I　concede　that　the　class　of　arrests

complained　of　can　be　constitutional　only　when；　in　cases　of　rebellion

or　invasion；　the　public　safety　may　require　them；　and　I　insist　that　in

such　casesthey　are　constitutional　wherever　the　public　safety　does

require　them；　as　well　in　places　to　which　they　may　prevent　the

rebellion　extending；　as　in　those　where　it　may　be　already　prevailing；

as　well　where　they　may　restrain　mischievous　interference　with　the

raising　and　supplying　of　armies　to　suppress　the　rebellion　as　where

the　rebellion　may　actually　be；　as　well　where　they　may　restrain　the

enticing　men　out　of　the　army　as　where　they　would　prevent　mutiny　in

the　army；　equally　constitutional　at　all　places　where　they　will

conduce　to　the　public　safety　as　against　the　dangers　of　rebellion　or

invasion。　　Take　the　particular　case　mentioned　by　the　meeting。　　　It　is

asserted　in　substance　that　Mr。　Vallandigham　was；　by　a　military

commander；　seized　and　tried　〃for　no　other　reason　than　words　addressed

to　a　public　meeting　in　criticism　of　the　course　of　the　administration；

and　in　condemnation　of　the　military　orders　of　the　general。〃　Now；　if

there　be　no　mistake　about　this；　if　this　assertion　is　the　truth；　and

the　whole　truth；　if　there　were　no　other　reason　for　the　arrest；　then　I

concede　that　the　arrest　was　wrong。　　But　the　arrest；　as　I　understand；

was　made　for　a　very　different　reason。　　Mr。　Vallandigham　avows　his

hostility　to　the　war　on　the　part　of　the　Union；　and　his　arrest　was

made　because　he　was　laboring；　with　some　effect；　to　prevent　the

raising　of　troops；　to　encourage　desertions　from　the　army；　and　to

leave　the　rebellion　without　an　adequate　military　force　to　suppress

it。　　　He　was　not　arrested　because　he　was　damaging　the　political

prospects　of　the　administration　or　the　personal　interests　of　the

commanding　general；　but　because　he　was　damaging　the　army；　upon　the

existence　and　vigor　of　which　the　life　of　the　nation　depends。　　He　was

warring　upon　the　military；　and　thus　gave　the　military　constitutional

jurisdiction　to　lay　hands　upon　him。　　If　Mr。　Vallandigham　was　not

damaging　the　military　power　of　the　country；　then　his　arrest　was　made

on　mistake　of　fact；　which　I　would　be　glad　to　correct　on　reasonably

satisfactory　evidence。



I　understand　the　meeting　whose　resolutions　I　am　considering　to　be　in

favor　of　suppressing　the　rebellion　by　military　forceby　armies。

Long　experience　has　shown　that　armies　cannot　be　maintained　unless

desertion　shall　be　punished　by　the　severe　penalty　of　death。　　The　case

requires；　and　the　law　and　the　Constitution　sanction；　this　punishment。

　Must　I　shoot　a　simple…minded　soldier　boy　who　deserts　while　I　must

not　touch　a　hair　of　a　wily　agitator　who　induced　him　to　desert。　　This

is　none　the　less　injurious　when　effected　by　getting　a　father；　or

brother；　or　friend　into　a　public　meeting；　and　there　working　upon　his

feelings　till　he　is　persuaded　to　write　the　soldier　boy　that　he　is

fighting　in　a　bad　cause；　for　a　wicked　administration　of　a

contemptible　government；　too　weak　to　arrest　and　punish　him　if　he

shall　desert。　　I　think　that；　in　such　a　case；　to　silence　the　agitator

and　save　the　boy　is　not　only　constitutional；　but　withal　a　great

mercy。



If　I　be　wrong　on　this　question　of　constitutional　power；　my　error　lies

in　believing　that　certain　proceedings　are　constitutional　when；　in

cases　of　rebellion　or　invasion；　the　public　safety　requires　them；

which　would　not　be　constitutional　when；　in　absence　of　rebellion　or

invasion；　the　public　safety　does　not　require　them：　in　other　words；

that　the　Constitution　is　not　in　its　application　in　all　respects　the

same　in　cases　of　rebellion　or　invasion　involving　the　public　safety　as

it　is　in　times　of　profound　peace　and　public　security。　　The

Constitution　itself　makes　the　distinction；　and　I　can　no　more　be

persuaded　that　the　government　can　constitutionally　take　no　strong

measures　in　time　of　rebellion；　because　it　can　be　shown　that　the　same

could　not　be　lawfully　taken　in　times　of　peace；　than　I　can　be

persuaded　that　a　particular　drug　is　not　good　medicine　for　a　sick　man

because　it　can　be　shown　to　not　be　good　food　for　a　well　one。　　Nor　am　I

able　to　appreciate　the　danger　apprehended　by　the　meeting；　that　the

American　people　will　by　means　of　military　arrests　during　the

rebellion　lose　the　right　of　public　discussion；　the　liberty　of　speech

and　the　press；　the　law　of　evidence；　trial　by　jury；　and　habeas　corpus

throughout　the　indefinite　peaceful　future　which　I　trust　lies　before

them；　any　more　than　I　am　able　to　believe　that　a　man　could　contract　so

strong　an　appetite　for　emetics　during　temporary　illness　as　to　persist

in　feeding　upon　them　during　the　remainder　of　his　healthful　life。



In　giving　the　resolutions　that　earnest　consideration　which　you

request　of　me；　I　cannot　overlook　the　fact　that　the　meeting　speak　as

〃Democrats。〃　Nor　can　I；　with　full　respect　for　their　known

intelligence；　and　the　fairly　presumed　deliberation　with　which　they

prepared　their　resolutions；　be　permitted　to　suppose　that　this

occurred　by　accident；　or　in　any　way　other　than　that　they　preferred　to

designate　themselves　〃Democrats〃　rather　than　〃American　citizens。〃　In

this　time　of　national　peril　I　would　have　preferred　to　meet　you　upon　a

level　one　step　higher　than　any　party　platform；　because　I　am　sure　that

from　such　more　elevated　position　we　could　do　better　battle　for　the

country　we　all　love　than　we　possibly　can　from　those　lower　ones　where；

from　the　force　of　habit；　the　prejudices　of　the　past；　and　selfish

hopes　of　the　future；　we　are　sure　to　expend　much　of　our　ingenuity　and

strength　in　finding　fault　with　and　aiming　blows　at　each　other。　　But

since　you　have　denied　me　this　I　will　yet　be　thankful　for　the

country's　sake　that　not　all　Democrats　have　done　so。　　He　on　whose

discretionary　judgment　Mr。　Vallandigham　was　arrested　and　tried　is　a

Democrat；　having　no　old　party　affinity　with　me；　and　the　judge　who

rejected　the　constitutional　view　expressed　in　these　resolutions；　by

refusing　to　discharge　Mr。　Vallandigham　on　habeas　corpus　is　a　Democrat

of　better　days　than　these；　having　received　his　judicial　mantle　at　the

hands　of　President　Jackson。　　And　still　more：　of　all　those　Democrats

who　are　nobly　exposing　their　lives　and　shedding　their　blood　on　the

battle…field；　I　have　learned　that　many　approve　the　course　taken　with

Mr。　Vallandigham；　while　I　have　not　heard　of　a　single　one　condemning

it。　　I　cannot　assert　that　there　are　none　such。　　And　the　name　of

President　Jackson　recalls　an　instance　of　pertinent　history。　　After

the　battle　of　New　Orleans；　and　while　the　fact　that　the　treaty　of

peace　had　been　concluded　was　well　known　in　the　city；　but　before

official　knowledge　of　it　had　arrived；　General　Jackson　still

maintained　martial　or　military　law。　　Now　that　it　could　be　said　that

the　war　was　over；　the　clamor　against　martial　law；　which　had　existed

from　the　first；　grew　more　furious。　　Among　other　things；　a　Mr。

Louaillier　published　a　denunciatory　newspaper　article。　　General

Jackson　arrested　him。　　A　lawyer　by　the　name　of　Morel　procured　the

United　States　Judge　Hall　to　order　a　writ　of　habeas　corpus　to　release

Mr。　Louaillier。　　General　Jackson　arrested　both　the　lawyer　and　the

judge。　　A　Mr。　Hollander　ventured　to　say　of　some　part　of　the　matter

that　〃it　was　a　dirty　trick。〃　General　Jackson　arrested　him。　　When　the

officer　undertook　to　serve　the　writ　of　habeas　corpus；　General　Jackson

took　it　from　hi