VOLHIE 37. NEW SERIES. THE BEDFORD GAZETTE IS .PUBLISHED EVERT FRIDAT MORNING BT BY B. F. MEYERS, At the following terms, to wit: $1.50 per annum, CASH, in advance. $'2.00 if paid within the year. $2.50 " if not paid within the year. E7"NO subscription taken for less than six months. KyNo paper discontinued until all arrearages are paid, unless at the option of the publisher, it has been decided by the United States Courts 4 tha: the stoppage of a newspaper without toe payment ot are rearages, is prima facie evidence of fraud and is a criminal offence. courts have decided that persons are ac countable for the subscription price of newspapers, it the> take theun from the post office,whether they subscribe for them, or not. RAXES OF CHARGES FOR ADVER TISINQ. Transient advertisements will be inserted at the rate of SI.OO per square of ten lines for three inser tions, or lesr, but for every subsequent insertion, 23 cents per square will be charged in addition.— Table and figure work double price. Auditor's notices ten lines an.l under, SI.OO ; upwards of ten lines and under fifteen $1.53. Liberal reductions m.ide to persons advertising by the year. THE MERRYMAN CASE. Pectslou of I'liitf Jiis'ire Taney ex parti I Before the Chief Justice of the JOHS MKRBYMAN. S Supreme Court of the United ; y States, at Chambers. The rpplicaliun in this case for writ of habe as cot pus is made to me under the 14th section ' of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which renders ef fectual for the citizen the constitutional privi lege of the writ of habeas corpus. That act gives to the Courts of the United States, as well as to each Justice of 'he Supreme Court, and to every District Judge, power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the pu r pose of an inquiry 1 into the cause of commitment. The pe- ' tition was presented to me at Washington un der the impression that I would order the prisoner to be brought before ire there, but as he was confined in Fort McHenry,at the city of Baltimore, which i? in my circuit, I resolved j to hear it in the latter city, as obedience to the j writ, under such circumstances, would not j withdraw General C'adwalader, who had him in cbßtge, frcm the limits of his military com-j mand. • The petition presents the following ca*e : fhe petitioner resides in Maryland, in Balti more county. While peaceably ir. his own house, with fcis family, he was, at 2 o'clock, on the morning of the Sbth of May, 1801, arres ted by an armed force, professing to act under" military orders. He was then compelled to rise from his bed, taken into cu-tody. and con veyed to Fort McHenry, where he is imprison ed by the commanding officej, without warrant from any lawful authority. The Commander of the Foit, General George ; CaCwalader,by whom he is d-tained in confine- 1 menl, in his return to the writ, does not deny j any of the facts aiieged in the petition. He ! states that the prisoner was arrested by oider of General Keirn, of Pennsylvania, and conduc ted as a prisoner to Fort McHenry by his order, and placed in his (General Cadwalader's) custo dy to be there detained by him as a prisoner. A copy of the warrant or order under which , the prisoner was arrested was demanded by his j counsel, and refused. And it is not alleged in ( the return that any specific act, constituting i ar. offence against the laws of the United States has been charged against him upon oath, but he i appears to have been arrested upon genera! j charges of treason and rebellion, without proof, and without giving the nanus of the witnesses, ! or specifying the act? which, in the judgment . of the military officer, constituted these crimes. And having the prisoner thus in custody upon 1 these vague and unsupported accusations, he refuses o obey the writ of habeas corpus, upon : the ground that he is duly authorized by the President to suspend it. The case, then, is simply this : A military >tficer, residing in Pennsylvania, issues an order to arrest a citizen of Maryland, upon vague and indefinite charges, without any proof s> far as appears. Under this oider, his house is enter ed in the night ; he is seized as a prisoner, and conveyed to Fort McHenry, and there k"pt in close confinement. And when a habeas corpus is served on the commanding officer, requiring bun to produce the prisoner before 3 Justice of the Supreme Court, in order that lie may ex amine into the legality of the imprisonment, the answer of the officer is that he is aufclaori zed by the President to suspend the writ of habeas cqrcyf at his discretion, and, in the ex ercise of trial discretion, suspends ii in this case, and on that ground refuses obedience to the writ. As the case comes before me, therefore, 1 un- t Jrrstand that the Piesider.t Dot only claims the 1 right to suspend the writ of h.ab'-as corpus him e|f, at his discretion, but to delegate thai dis cretionary po*ver to a military officer, and to j leave it to him to determioe whether he will or j will not obey judicial process that may be serv- i ed upon him. No official notice has been given to the courts j at justice, or to the public, by proclamat ion or otherwise, that the President claimed this pow er, and had exTcised it in the manner stated in the return. And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those pornU of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of Congress. When ihe conspiracy of which Aaron Burr w< the bead became so formidable and was so eater gively ramified as to justify, in Mr. Jeff ersor 's opinion, the suspension of the writ, he CLAM ed, on his part, DO power to suspend it— bu; communicated hie opinion to Congress with •lithe proofs in his possession, in older that Coagrtai might exercise its discretion upon the subject, and determine whether the public safe- BeMofb ty required it. And in the debate which took place upon the subject, 110 one suggested that Mr. Jefferson might exercise the power himself if, in his opinion, the public safety demanded i ' l * Having, therefore, regarded the question as too plain and too well settled to be open to dis i pute, if the commanding officer had stated that upon his own responsibility, and in the exercise of his own discretion, he lefused obedience to ; the writ, I should have contented myself with | ref-rtng to the clause in the Constitution, and. to the construction it receivedjfrom jurists and . statesmen of that day, when the case of Burr was before them. But being thus officially no ' tified that (hAf)rivi]ege of the writ was suspen ded under the orders, and by the authority of the P-esident, and believing, as I do, that the President has exercised a power which tie does not possess under the Constitu.ion, a proper re- j spect for the high office tie tills requiiesme (0 s'ate plainly aod fully thegioundsof my opin ion, in order to show thai I have not ventured to question the legality of his act without a car etui and deliberate examination of the whole subject. Tfap clause in the Constitution, which au thorizes the suspension of the privilege ol the ; writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the firs! article. T his article is devoted to the legislative de partment of the United States, and has not the slightest reference lo the Executive department. It begins by proxiding "that alljtglslative pow ers therein granted shall be vested in a Con- ' gress of the United State.-, which shall oonsist f of a Senate and House of Representatives.— And after prescribing the manner in which ; these two branches of the legislative depart-' rnent shali be chosen, it proceeds to enumerate j specifically the legislative powers which it thereby grants, and legislative powers which it expressly prohibits ; and, at the conclusion ot this specification, a clause is inserted giving Congress "the power to make ail laws which j may be necessary and proper for carrying into execution Ike foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution 111 the Gov ernment of the United Slates or in any depart ment or office thereof." The power of legislation granted by this lat ter clause is by its words carefully confined to the specific objects before enumerated. But as this limitation was unavoidably somewhat in definite, it was deemed necessary to guard more effectually certain great cardinal principles es sential to the liberty of the citizen, and to the rights and equality of the State*, by denying .\ Congress, in express terms, acy power of legis lating over them It was apprehended, it seems that such legislation might be attempted under the pretext that it was necessary and proper to carry into execution the powers granted - } and it was determined that there should be no room to doubt, where rghts of such vital importance were concerned, 3nd|accordinglv, this clause is immediately followed by an enumeration of certain subjects, to which the power? of legisla tion shall not extend ; and the great importance which the framers of the Constitution attached to the privilege ol the writ of habeas eorpus to protect the liberty ofthe citizen is proved by the fact that its suspension, except in case of in vasion and rebellion, is first in tne list of pro hibited powers—and even in these cases the power is denied, and its exercise prohibited, un less the public safety shall require it. It is true that in the cases mentioned Con gress is of necessity the judge of whether the public safety does or does not require it ; and their judgment is conclusive. But fhe intro duction of these words is a standing admonition to the Ipg'slative body of the danger of sus pending if, and of the extreme caution they should exercise before they give the Uovern ment of the United States such power over the liberty of a citizen. It is the second article oi the Constitution that pn&'ides lor the organization of the Execu tive Department, and enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citi zens now claimed was intended to be conferred on the President, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article. But there is not a word in it, that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power. The article begins by declaring that the Ex ecutive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America, to hold his office during the term of four years—and then pro ceeds to prescribe the mode of election, and to specify in precise and plain words the powers deiegaterf to him and the duties imposed upon him. And the short term for whicn he is e iected, and the narrow limits to which his pow er is confined, show the jealousy and appre hensions of future danger which the framere of the Constitution felt in relation to that de partment of the Government—and how careful ly they withheld from it many of the powers be longing to the Executive branch of the English Government which were considered as danger ous to the liberty of the subject—and conferred {and that in clear and specific terms) those pow ers only which were deemed essential to ae cure the successful operation of the Govern ment. He is elected, as I have already said, for the brief term of four years, and is made personally responsible, by impeachment, for malfeasance in office. He is from necessity and the nature of his duties the commander-in-chief of the ar my and navy, and of the militia, when called into actual service. But no appropriation for the support of the army can be made by Con gress for a longer term than two years, so that it is in the power of the succeeding House of Represeniatives to withold the appropriation for its support, and thus disband it, if in their judg ment the President used, or designed to use, it for improper purposes. And although the militia, when in actual service, are under his command, yet the appointment of the officers is reserved to the States as a security against the use of ihe military power for purposes dan- BEDFORD, PA., FRIDAY MORNING, JUNE 14,1861. | gerous to the liberties of tfte people or the r'ghts of the Slate*. 5 So, toor,his powers in relation to the civil du ties and authority necessafSly conferred on him are carefully restricted, as well as those belong ing to his military character. He cannot ap point the ordinary officers of government, nor make a trea ' with a foreign nation or Indian tiibe, without the advice and consent of the I Senate, and cannot even appoint even in fei ior officers, unless he isauthoiized by an act of Congress to do so. He i n>t em,) >w-rej to arrest any one charged with an off- ice d u w . the United States, and whom tie may, fro.u to evidence before him, believe to be guil y } li >i can he authorize any officer, civil or m.litary, to exeicise this power, for the nth aiticle to trie ; amendments to the Constitution expressly pro vides that no person "shall be deprived of life, , iibeity or property, without due process of law" that is, judicial process. Aud even if the privilege of the writ of ha beas corpus was suspended by act of Congress, and a party not subject to the rules and articles ol war was afterwards arrested and imprisoned | by regular judicial process—he could i.ot be de tained in prison or brought to trial before a nail ! itary tribuuai, for the article in Ihe Amendments to the Constitution immrpalely following the j one aoove teforrd to—thai is,lfi6th aiticle I provides thot "In all ciimmal prosecutions the s accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury ol the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been pre viously ascertained by law, and to be inlormed of the nature and cause of the accusation ; to be confronted with the witnesses against bini; to have compulsory process for obtaining wit nesses in his lavor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence." Ami the only power, therefore, which the President possesses, where the " lite, liberty or property" o' a private citizen is concerned, is the power and duty prescribed in the third sec tion ot the second article, which lequires " that he shall take care that the laws be laithfully ex ecuted." He is not authorized to execute them himself, or through agent* or officers civil or military, appointed by himself, but he is to take care that they be faithfully carried into execu tion, as they; are exjKJunded and adjudged by the co-ordinate branch of the Government to which that duty is assigned by the Constitution. It is thus made his duty to come in aid of the judicial authority, if it shall be resisted by a force too strong to be overcome without the as- > iiiatar.co of (bo dloeuttVv arm. Qul r> -n- i tim ing this duty he acts in subordination tojudicial authority, assisting it to execute it* piocess and i enforce its judgments. With such provisions in the Constitution, ex pressed in language too clear to be misunder stood by any one, I can see no ground whatev er for supposing that the President, in any emergency or in any state ol things, can author ize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus ; or arrest a citizen, except in aid of the judicial power. He certainly does not faithlully execute the laws il he takes upon himself legislative power by suspending the writ of Habeas corpus —and the judicial power also by arresting and imprisoning a person with out due process of law. can any argil- 1 ment be drawn from the nature ol sovereignty, or the necessities of government, for sell-de fence in timts oftumult and danger. Tie Gov ernment of the United States is one of delegated powers. It derives its existence and authority altogether from the Constitution, and neither of its branches, Executive, Legislative or Judi cial, can exercise any of thempowers of Gov-ro ment beyond those specified and granted. For the 10th article ol the amendment to ttie Con stitution, in express terms provides that " the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, j or to the people." Indeed, the security against imprisonment by executive authority, provided for in the fiftti article of the Amendments ot the Constitution, which I have before quoted, is nothing more than a copy of a like provision in the English Constitution, which had been firml) established before the Declaration of Independence. Blaokstone in his Commentaries (Ist vol., 137), states it in the following words: "To make imprisonment lawful, it must be either by process from the Courts of Judicature or by warrant from some legal officer having authority to commit to prison." And the peo- j pie of the United Colonies, who had themselves lived under its protection while they were British subjects, were wvll aware of the neces sity of this safeguard for their personal liberty. And no one can believe that in framing a gov ernment intended to guard still more efficient ly the rights of the citizens against executive encroachment and oppression, they would have conferred on the President a power which the history of England had proved to be dangeious and oppressive in the hands of the Crown, and which the people of England had compelled it to surrender after a long and obstinate struggle on the part of the English Executive to usurp and retain it. The right of the subject to the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus , it must be recollected, was one of the great points in controversy dur ing the long struggle in England between arbi trary govrrnment and free institutions, and must therefore have strongly attracted the at tention of statesmen engaged in framing a n#w and, as they supposed, a freer government than the one which they had thrown off by the rev olution. For from the earliest history of the common law, if a person was imprisoned—no matter by what authority —he had a right to the writ of habeas corpus to bring his case befoie the King's Bench ; and if no specific offence was charged against him in the warrant of com ment, he was entitled 10 he forthwith discharg ed ; and if any offence was charged which was bailable in its character, the court was bound I to set him at libety on bail. And the most ex- Freedom of Thought and Opinion. crltng contests between the Crown and the peo ple ot England from the time of Magna Charta were ir. relation to the privilege of this writ, and they continued until the passage of the statute of'2l st Ci arles 2d, commonly known as ' the grpat habeas corpus act. 1 Tins sta'ute put an end to the struggle, and finally and firmly secured the liberty of the sub j ct from the usurpation and oppression of the Executive branch of the Government. It nev | -■ thefess conferred no n-w right upon the sub *t, hut ml* secured a right already existing. ' r, although the right could not be justly de !, timie wa, no effectual remedy against its ; 1 U'i 'n. Until the statute of the 13th of '• i.lia.ri 3 f, the Judges heid their offices at fhe pt -a-ure of the King, and the influences which he exercised over tim.J, lime-serving and par tisan judges often induced them, upon some pre text or another, to refuse to discharge the party although he was entitled to it by law, or delay ed their decisions from time to time, so as to prolong the imprisonment of persons who were obnoxious to the King for their political opin ions, or had incurred his resentmeot in any oth er way. The g*eat aad inestimable value of the habeas corpus act or the 31st Charles 2, is that it con • "ains provisions which compel courts and judges and all parties concerned, to perform their du ties promptly, in the manner specified in the statute. A passige in Blackstone s Comment tries, show ing the ancient state of the law upon this sub juct, and the abuses which were practiced thro' the power and influence of the Crown, and a short extract from Hallam's Constitutional His tory, stating the circumstances which gave rise "> the passage of this statute, explain briefly, but fully, all that is material on this subject. Liackstone, in in his commentaries on the Laws of England (3d vol., 133 134), says: "To assert an absolute exemption lrom im prisonment in all cases is inconsistent with ev ery idea ol law and political society, and in the end would destroy all civil liberty bv render ing its protection impossible. " But the glory ol the English law consists in clearly defining the times, the causes, and the extent, when, wherefore, and to what degree t *e imprisonment of the subject may be lawful, rhis it is which induces the absolute necessity ol expressing upon every commitment the rea srtn for which it is made, that the court upon a habeas corpus rnav examine into is validity, and according to the circumstances of the case discharge, admit to bail or remand the pris "And yet early in the reign of Charles 1, the Court of King's Bench, relying on some ar bitrary precedents (and those perhaps misunder stood) determined that they would not, upon a habeas corpus , either bail or deliver a prisoner, though committed without any cause assigned, in case he was committed by the special com mand of the King or by the Lords of the Privy Council. This drew on a Parliamentary in quiry and produced the Petition of Right- 3 Chas. 1. which recites this illegal judgment, and enacts that no freeman hereafter shall be imprisoned or detained. But when in the fol lowing year Mr. Selden and others were com mitted by the lords of the Council in pursuance ol his Majesty's special command, under a general charge ol " notable contempts, and stirring up sedition against the King and Government," the judges delayed for two terms (including also the long vacation) to deliver an opinion how far such a charge was bailable. And when at length they agreed that it was, they, however, annexed a condition of finding sureties for their good behavfor, which still protracted their imprisonment, the Chief Justice, Sir Nicholas H)de, at the same time declaring that 'if they were again remand ed tor hat cause perhaps the Court would not afterwards grant a habeas corpus , being already made acquainted with the cause of the impris onment.' But this was hpard with indignation and astonishment by every lawyer present, ac cording to Mr. Selden's own account of the matter, whose lesentment was not cooled at the distance of four nd twenty years." It is worthy of remark thai the offences charg ed against the prisoner in this case, and relied on a* a jn>t ifit ai ion for his arrest and imprison rnmt, in their nature and character, and in the ! ose and vague manner in which they are stated, hear a striking resemblance to those as signed in the warrant for the arrest of Mr. Sel den. And yet, even at that day, the warrant was regaided as such a flagrant violation of the rights of the subject that the delay of the time serving judges to set him at liberty upon the habeas corpus issued in his behalf excited univer sal indignation at the bar. The extract from Hal lam's Constitutional History is equally impres sive and equally in posnt. It is in vol. 4: p. 14. " It is a very common mistake, and not only among foreigners, but many from whom some knowledge of our constitutional laws might bp expected, to suppose that this statute of Charles 11, enlarged in a great degree our liberties, and forms a sort of epoch in their history. But though a very beneficial enactment, and emi nently remedial in many cases of illegal impris onment, it introduced no new principle, nor conferred any right upon the subject. From the earliest records of the English law, no free man could be detained in prison except upon a criminal charge or conviction, or for a civil debt. In the former case it was always in his power to demand of the Court of King's Bench a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum direct ed to the person detaining him in custody, by which he was enjoined to bring up the body of the piisoner with the warrant of commitment that the Court might judge of its sufficiency and remand the party, admit him to bail, or dis charge bim.according to the nature of the charge. This writ issued of right, and could not be re fused by the Court. It was not to bestow an immunity from arbitrary imprisonment, which is abundantly provided for in Magna Chart* (if, indeed, it were not more ancient), that the atat ute of Charles 11. was enacted, but to cut off the abuses by which the Government's lust of power, and the servile subtlety of Crown law yers, had impaired so fundamental a privilege." While the value set upon this writ in Eng land has been so great that the removal of the abuses which embarrassed its enjoyments have been looked upon as almost a new grant of lib erty to the subject, it is not to be wondered at (hat the contiunance of the writ thus made effec tive should have been the subject of the most jealous care. Accordingly, no power in Eng land short of that of Parliament canjsusppod or authorize the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. 1 quote again from Blackstone(l Comm, 136); " But the happiness of our Con stitufon is tnal it is not left to the Executive power to determine when the danger of the State is so great as to render this measure ex pedient. It is the Parliament only'or legisla tive powei that whenever it sees proper, can authorize fhe Crown by suspending the habeas corpus for a short and limited time, to impri son suspected persons without giving any rea son for so doing." And if the President of the United States may suspend the writ, then the Constitution of the Uuited States has conferred upon him more regal and absolute power over the liberty oi the citizen than the people of England have thought it safe to eotrust to the Crown—a power which the Queeo of Eng land cannot exercise at this daj-, and which could not have been lawfully exercised by the sovereign even in the reign of Charles the First. But I am not left to form my judgment upon this great question from analogies between the English Government and our own, or the com mentaries of English jurists, or the decisions of English courts, although upon this subject they are entitled to the highest respect, and are just ly regarded and received as authoritative by our courts of justice. To guide me to a right conclusion, 1 have the commentaries on the Constitution of the United States ol the late Mr. Justice Story, not only one of the must em inent juiists of the age, but for a long time one of the biightist ornaments or the Supreme Court of the United States and also the clear and authoritative decision of that Court itself given more than half a century since, and con clusively establishing the principles I have above stated. Mr. Justice Story, speaking in his Commen taries of the habeas corpus clause in the Consti tution, says : •'lt is obvious that cases of a peculiar emer gency may nuse - tuuli ma; ju. if., •;, .... require the temporary suspension of any right to the writ. But as it has frequently happened in foreign countries, and even in England, that the writ has, upon various pretexts and oc casions, been suspended,whereby persons appre hended upon supicion have suffered a long im prisonment, sometimes irom design, and sometimes because they were forgotten, the right to suspend it is expressly confined to cases of rebellion or invasion, where the public safe ty may require it. A very just and wholesome restraint, which cuts down at a blow a fruitful means of oppression, capable of being abused in bad times to'he worst of purposes. Hitherto no suspension of the writ has ever been auth orized by Congress since the establishment ot the Constitution. Il would seem, as the pow er is given to Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, that the right to judge whether the exigency had arisen must exclusively belong to that body." 3 Story's Com, on the Constitution, section 1, 336. N And Chief Juctice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of ex parte Bollman and Swartwout, uses this de cisive language in 4 Cranch 95 : It may be worthy of remark that this act (speaking ol the one under which I am proceeding) was passed by the fiist Congress of the Unit.d States sitting under a Constitution which had declared "that the privilege of the writ ol habeas corpus should not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety might require it." Acting under the immediate in fluence ot this injunction, they must have felt, with peculiar force, the obligation of provid ing efficient means by which this great consti tutional pnviiege should receive life and ac tivity; tor if the means be not in existence, the privilege itself would be lost, although no law for its suspension should be enacted. Under the impression of this obligation they give to all the Courts the power of awarding writs ol habeas corpus. And again, in page 101 : "If at any time the public safety should re quire the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the Legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the Legislature is to decide. Until the Legis- j iative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws." I can add nothing to these clear and emphat ic words of my great predecessor. But the documents before me show that the military authority in this case has gone far be yond the mere suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It has, by force of arms, thrust aside the judicial authorities and officers to whom IhS Constitution has confided the power and duty of interpreting and admin istering the laws, and substituted a mili tary government in its place, to be adminis tered and executed by military officers, for at the time these proceedings were had against John Merryman, the District Judge ol Mary land, the Commissioner appointed under the act of Congress, the District Attorney and the Marshal, all resided in the city of Baltimore, a few miles only from the home of the prison er. Up to that time there had never been the slightest resistance or obstruction to the pro j cess of any court os judicial officer of the Uni | ted States in Maryland, except by the military authority. And if military officer, or any WHOLE NUMBER, 9954. : other person, had reason to believe that the prisoner had committed any offences against the laws of the United States, it was his doty to give information of the fact, and the evi dencelto support it, to the District Attorney; and would then have become the duty of that offi l cer to bring the matter before the District Judger | or commissioner, and if there was sufficient le gal evidence to justify his arrest, the Judge of Commissioner would have issued his warrant fo the Marshal to arrest him; and upon the hear ; ing of the party would have held him to bail jor committed him for trial, according to the | character of the offence as it appeared in the | testimony, or would have discharged him im ■ mediately, if there was not sufficient evidence to support the accusation. There was no dan ger of any obstruction or resistance to the ac tion ol thp civil authorities, and therefore no reason whatever for the interposition of the mililary. And yet, under these circumstances a milta ry officer, stationed in Pennsylvania, without giving any information to the District Attor ney, and without any application to the judi cial authorities, assumes to himself the judicial power in the District of Maryland: undertakes to decide what constitutes the crime of treason or rebellion: what evidence (if indeed, be re quired anv) is sufficient to support the accusa tion and justify the commitment; and* commit the party, wkhout having a hearing even be fore himself, to close custody in a strongly gar risoned fort, to be there held, it would seem, during the pleasure of those who committed him. The Constitution provides, as I have before said, that "oo person shall be deprived'of life liberty or property, with due process ol law," It declares that the right of the people to be se cure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and DO warrant shall is sue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It provides that the party ac cused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice. And these gieat and fundamental laws, which Congress itsell could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by lorceof arms. Such is the case now before me, and 1 can only say that if the authority which the Constitution has confided to the ju diciary department and judicial officers may hns iinon anv oretexi pr under any circanAfan ces be usurped by the military power at its dis cretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the wiH and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found. In such a case my duty was too plain to be mistaken. I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome. It is possible that the officer who has incurred this grave respon sibility may have misunderstood his instruc tions, and exceeded the authority intended to be given him. I shall, therefore, order all the proceedings in this case, with my opinion, to be filed aod recorded in the Circuit Court of the United States for the JOistrict of Maryland, and direct the Clerk to transmit a copv, un der seal, to the President of the United States. It will then remain for that high officer, in ful fillment of his constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," to determine what measures he will take to cause the civil process of the United States to be re-* epected and enforced. R. B.TANEY, Chief Justice Supreme Coart of the United States. THE RETURNED VOLUNTEERS. It was with surprise and mortification that we met the volunteers from this county, on friday of last week, on their return lrom camp McAllen, near Chambersburg, where they had been encamped for the past month. It waa with regret that our citizens witnessed their re turn by broken squads, their clothing tattered and torn, but their hardy sun-burned counte nances radiant with health. These men have been outrageously treated by the authorities of the State,or at least byjthosejwhojprofessed to act by authority of the Governor. They were re cruited for three months, and were positively assuied that the regiment to which they were to be attached oo arriving at Chambersburg, was already accepted by the Governor for three months service, unconditionally. They were told that they need not a supply of cloth ing along with them, but that they would be uniformed, armed and equipped in a few days, hence most of the men took with them the worst clothing they had, and in a few days they de served to be called the " ragged Militia." Of course, in this matter like the treatment of our organized regiments, "nobody's to blame !" It was only a slight mistake, as some would have us believe, on the part oi the Governor! A slight mistake, indeed ! Do you hear of such blunders in other States 1 No, it was oaused by the ignorance and neglect of those having charge of the matter, and we do not wonder that the soldiers became disgusted and out of heart, and that they determined to march home. The Governor,doubt less, is principally to blame, but there are parties nearer home who will be held responsible. The companies from this county were just one msnth in camp, and after being called there by what purported to be an order from the Gov ernor of the State, they are very coolly told that unless they enlist for three years they will get no pay for the time already lost. Is such treatment right ? The men composing these Companies speak in the highest terms of their officers, and oo part of the blame foi this scandalous treatment ' attaches t.j them.— Fulton Dsmoorot- VOL. 4. NO. 44.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers