.. , . . N J OAT' . . ".. • ;. . , 1 : E M -1 . : C t. A : 1 A. J. GERRITSON, Proprietor.} - Two DIESSAGES OF THE PRESI DENT. The Sherman Military Bill and tenure of Office Bill returned to Congress 'without approval. WASHINGTON, March 2. The following is the message of the President of the United States, returning to the House of Representatives a bill en titled "An act to provide for tile more efficient governut6it of the Rebel States: To the House of Representatives—l have examined the bill "To provide -tin• the more efficient government of the Rebel States' with the care and anxiety which its transcendent importance is calculated to awaken. I am unable to give it my assent, for reasons so grave that I hope a statement of them may have some influ ence on the minds of the patriotic and en lightened men with whom the decision must ultimately rest. The bill places all the people of the ten States therein named under the absolute domination of military rulers, and the preamble undertakes to give the reason upon which the measure is based, and the ground upon which it is justified. It de clares that there exists in those States no legal governments, and no adequate pro tection for life or property, and asserts the necessity of enforcing peace and good or der within their limits. Is this true as matter of fact? It is denied that the States in question have each of them an actual government, with all the powers, executive, judicial, and legislative, which properly belong to a free State. They are organized like the other States of the Union, and like them, they make, adminis ter, and execute the laws which concern their domestic affairs. Au existing Jefac :a government, exercising such functions as these, is itself a law of the State upon all matters within its jurisdiction. To pronounce the supreme law making pow er of an established State illegal is to say that law itself is unlawful. 'rile provisions which these governments have made for the preservation of order, the suppression of crime, and the redress of private injuries, are in substance and principle the same as those which prevail in the Northern States and in other civ- clantries. They certainly have not f.ucceeded in preventing the commission all crime, nor has this been accomplish ed anywhere in the world. There, as lis-r ”ir...udCl 3 NUILIUL VS' cape for want of vigorous prosecution, and occasionally, perhaps, by the ineffi ciency of courts, or the prejudices of ju ror.. It is undoubtedly true that these evils have been much increased and aggra vate), North and South, by the demoral zng influence of civil war, and by the rancorous passions which the contest has engendered. But that these people are maintaining local governments for them selves, which habitually defeat the object of all government, and render their own lives and property insecnre, is in itself ut terly improbable, and the averment of the bill to that effect is not supported by any evidence which has come to my knowl edge. All the information I have on the subject convinces me that the masses of the Southern people and those who con trol their pubic acts, while they entertain divers opinions on questions of Federal p.dicy, are completely united in the effort to reorganize their society on the basis of peace, and to restore their mutual pros perity as rapidly and as completely as their cireum4tances will permit. The bill, however, would seem to show upon its face that the estab'ishment of peace and good order is not its real id); j , •ct. The fifth section declares that the preeedinz sections shall cease to operate in any State when certain events shall have happened. "These events are: 1. The selection of delegates to a state Convention by an election, at, which ne groes shall be allowed to vote. 2. The formation of a state Constitn- tion by the convention so chosen 3 The insertion into the state constitu tion of a provision which will secure the right of voting at all elections to negroes, and to such white men as may not be dis franchised for rebellion or felony. 4. The submission of the -Constitution for ratification to negroes and white men not disfranchised, and its actual ratifica tion by their votes. 5. The submission of the state constitu tl-,,;n to Congress for examination and ap proval, and the actual approval of it by that body. G. The adoption of a certain amend ment to the Federal constitution by a vote or the Legislature elected under the new , Constitution. 7. The adoption of said amendment by a sufficient number of other states to make it a part of the constitution of the Uni ted States. All these conditions must be fulfilled before the people of any of these States can be relieved front-the bondage of military domination; but when they are fulfilled then immediately pains and penalties of the bill are to cease, no mat ter whether there be peace andi order or not, and without any reference Co 'the se curity of life or property. The excuse given for the bill in the preamble is O mitted by the bill itself not. to be real. The military , rule which it establishes is plainly to be used, not for any purpose of order or for the .prevention Of crime, but solely as a means of coercing the people into the adoption of principles and mess tires to which k is known that they are opposed, and upon which they have an undeniable • right to exercise their own judgment. I submit; to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope, and object, without precedent and without authority; in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Con stitution, and utterly destructive to those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood I and expended so much treasure. The ten states named in the bill are di vided i❑to five districts. For each dis trict an officer of the army not below the rank of Brigadier General is to be appoin ted to rule -over the people, and he is to be supported with an efficient military force to enable him to perform his duties and enforce his authority. Tiose duties and that authority, as de fined by the third section of the bill, are " protect all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insur rection, disorder, and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all dis turbers of the public peace or criminals. Tile power thus given to the comman ding oftle,er over all the people of each dis trict is that of an absolute monarch. His mere will is to take the place of all law. The law of the states is nuw the only rule applicab'e to the subjects placed under his cow to!, and that is. completely dis placed by the o'ause which declares all in t r . crence of State authority to be holland void. He alone is permitted to determine what are rights of person or property, and he may protect them in such way as in his discretion may seem proper. It places at his free disposal all the lands and goods in his district, and he may distrib ute them Without let or hindrance to whom he pleases. Being hound by no state law, and there being no other law to regulate the subject, he may make a crim inal code of his,own, and he can make it as bloody as any recorded in history, or he can reserve the privileges of acting upon the impulses of his private passions in each case that arises. He is bound by no rules of evidence; there is indeed no provision by which he is authorized or required to take any evidence at all. Ev erlthing is a crime which ho rh call so, and Ail persons are congarnUa whom he pronounces to be guilty. He is not bound to keep any record or make any report of his proceedings. He may arrest his victims wherever he finds them, without warrant, accusation, or proof of probable cause. If he gives them a trial before he inflicts the punishment, he gives of his grace and mercy, not because he is commanded so to do. To a casual reader of the bill, it might seem that some kind of trial was secured by it to persons accused of crime, but such is not the case. The officer " may allow civil local tribunals to try offenders ;" but of course, this does not require that he shall do so. If any state or federal ccnrt presu mes to ex.ercise its legal jurisdiction by the trial of a malefactor without his special permission, he can break it up and puuish the judges and jurors as being i hemselves malefactors-, Ile can save his friends from justice, and despoil his ene mies contrary to justice. It is also Itrovided that " He shall have power to ()Tapir.: military commissions or tribunate,' But this power he is not commanded to Oxercise. It isimerely, permissive, and is to be used only when in his judgment it may be necessary for the trial of offen , i tiers. Even if the sentence of a commis -1 sion was made a prerequisite to the punish ment of a party, it would be scarcely the slightest check upon t i officer, who s authority to organize' it asase. s , prescribe its mode of proceeding, appoint its members from among his own subor- I dinates and revise all its decisions. In stead of mitigating the harshness of his ' single will, such a tribunal would be us- ed much wore probably to divide the re, spnnsibility of making it more cruel and unjust. Several provisions, dictated by the hu manity of Congress, have been inserted in the bill, apparently to restrain the power of the coin mandincr officer, but it seems to me that they are of 6 no avail for that pur pose. The fourth section provides: I 1. That trials shall not be unnecessarily delayed; but I think I have shown that 1 , the power is given to punish without tri : al, and, if so, this provision is practically inoperative. • 2. Cruel unusual punishment is not to be inflicted; but who is to decide what is cruel and what is unusual ? The words have acquired? legalmeaning by long use in the courts. Can it be expected that military officers will understand or follow a rule expressed in language so purely technical, _and not pertaining in the least degree to their projession ? If not, then each officer may define cruelty according to'his own temper, and, ifit is not usual, ho will make it usual. • Corporeal punish ment, imprisonment, the gag, the ball and , chain, and the almost insupportable forms of torture invented for military punish ' went; lie within:the range of 'choice. 8. The seateiicie.of-c commission is not to be ereentA without being • approved MONTROSE, PA., TUESDAY, MARCH 19,1867. by the commander, if it affects life or lib erty, and a sentence of death most be ap proved by the President. This applies to cases in which there has been a trial and a sentence. I take it to be clear under this bill that the military commander may condemn to death without even the form of a trial by a military commission; so that the life of the condemned may depend upon the will of two men instead of one. It is plain that the authority here giv en to the military officer amounts toabso lute despotism. But to make it still un endurable, the bill provides that it may be delegated to as many subordinates as he chooses to appoint for it declares that he shall " punish or cause to be punished." Such a power has not been wielded by any monarch in England for more than five hundred years. In all that time, no people who speak the English language have borne such servitude. It reduces the whole population of the ten States—all persons of every color, sex and condition, and every stranger within their limits to the most abject and degrading slavery. No master ever bad a control so absollito over his slaves aschhis bill gives to the military officers over both white and col oted persons. It may be answered to this that the of ficers of the army are too. inagnanithous, just and humane to oppress and trample upon a subjugated people. I do not doubt that army officers are as well enti tled to this kind ofeonfidence as any other, &ass of men. But the history of the world has been written in vain if it does not teach us that unrestrained authority I can never be safely trusted in human hands. It is almost sure to be more or less abused under any circumstances, and it has always resulted in gross tyranny where the rulers, who exercise it, are strangers to their subjects, and come among them as the representatives of a distant power, and more especially when I the power that sends them is unfriendly. Governments closely resembling that here proposed have been fairly tried in Hunga ry and Poland, and the suffering endured by those people roused the sympathies of the entire world. It was tried in Ireland, and though tempered at first by princi ples of English law, it gave birth to cru elties so atrocious that they are never re counted without just indignation. The French conveution armed its deputies Werailmages tne" republic. The massacres, murders, and other atro cities which they committed, show what the passions of the ablest men in the most civilized society will tempt them to do when wholly unrestrained by law. The men of our race in every ag e have struggled to tie up the bands of their gov ernment and keep them within the law, because their own experience of all man kind taught them that rulers could not be relied on to concede those rights which they were not legally bound to respect. The head of a great empire has sometimes' governed it with a mild and paternal sway, but the kindness of an irresponsible deputy never yields what the law does not extort from him. Between such a mas ter and the people subjected to his domi nation, there can be nothing but enmity; he punishes them if they resist his author ity, and if they submit to it be hates them for their servility. I come now to a question which is, if possible, still more important. Have we the power to establish and carry into ex ecution a measure like this? I answer, cot tainly not, if we derive our authority from the constitution, and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes. This proposition is perfectly clear that no branch of the federal government, ex- ec).lthe, Legislative or judicial, can have . ny just powers except those which it de rives through, and exercises under the or ganic law of the Union. Outside of the Constitution, we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and without it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions, and applies to all subjects. It protects not only the citizens of States which are within the Union, butit shields every human being who comes or is bro't 1 1 under our jurisdiction. We have no right to do in ono place more than in another that which the Con ; stitution says we shall not do at all. If, therefore, the Southern states were, in truth, out of the Union, we could not I treat their people in a way which the fun damental law forbids. I Some persons assume that the success of our arms in crushing the opposition I which was made in some of the States to ! the execution of the Federal law, reduced those States and all their people, the M- I nocent as well as the guilty, to the condi• tion of vassalage, and gave us a power over them which the Constitution does not bestow, or define, or limit. No fallacy can be more transparent than this. Our victories subject the in surgents to legal - obdience, not to the yoke of an arbitrary despotism. When an absolute sovereign reduces his rebell ions subjeet*, he may deal with them ac cording to his pleasure, because he had that power i)efore. , But vihan a limited monarch pots down an insurrection, he; mast still govern aceording-10,1aw. - If ito ,* insurrection should - take piece in 9128 Of or.r States egeirst the ivrerefamtv oft r e State government, and end in the over- I throw of those who planned it, would that take away the rights of all the people of the counties where it was favored, by a part or a majority of the population? Could they, for such a reason, be wholly outlawed and deprived of their represen tion in the Legislature ? I have always contended that the government of the United States was sovereign within its constitutional sphere,Shat it executed its laws like the States themselves by apply ing its coercive power directly to indi viduals, and that it could put down insur rection with the same effect as a State, and no other. The opposite doctrine is the worst, heresy of those who advocated secession, and_oannot be agreed to with out admittiu(tbat heresy, to be right. Invasion, insurrection, rebellion, and do mestic violence, were anticipated, when the got , ernment was framed, and the means of repelling and suppressing them were wisely provided for by the Consti tution; but it was not thought necessary to declare that the States in which they might occur should be expelled from the Union. Rebellions, which were invariably sup pressed, occurred prior to that out of which- these questions grow. But the states continued to exist, and the Union remained unbroken: In Massachusetts, in Pennsylvania, in Rhode island, and in New York, at different periods in our his tory, violent and armed opposition to the United States was carried on. But the relations of those States with the federal government were not supposed to be in terrupted or changed thereby, after the rebellious portions of their population were defeated and put down. It is true that in these earlier cases there was no formal expression of a determination to withdraw from the Union. But it is al so true, that in the Southern States the ordinances of secession were treated by all the friends of the Union as mere nul lities, and are now acknowledged to be so by the States themselves. If we ad- ntit that they had any force or validity, or that they did, in fact, take the States in which they were passed out of the Union, we sweep from under our feet all the grounds upon which we stand in justifying the use of Federal force to maintain the integrity of the government. This is a bill passed by Congress in time of peace. There is not in any one of the States itisurreettori. The laws of the states, and of the Federal government, are all in un disturbed and harmonious operation. The courts, state and Federal, are open and in the full exercise of their proper authority.. Over every State, comprised in these five military districts, liberty, and prop erty are secured by State laws and Feder al laws, and the national Constitution is everywhere in force, and everywhere obeyed. What then is the ground on which this bill proceeds P The title of the bill announces that it is intended for the more efficient government of these fen States. It is recited by way of pre amble, that no legal State governments, nor adequate protection for life or prop erty, exist in those states, and that peace and good order should be thus enforced. The first thing which arrests attention upon those recitals which prepare the way for martial law is this : That the only foundation upon which martial law can exist under our form of government, is not stated or so much as pretended : ac tual war, foreign invasion, domestic in surrection; none of these apear, and none of these in fact exist. Although it 0 not even recited that any sort of war or insurrection is threatened. Let us pause here to consider upon this question of constitutional law and the power of Congress, a recent decision of the Supreme Coart of the United States in ex parte Milligan. I will first quote front the opinion of the majority of the Court : " Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. :The necessity must be actual and present, the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil authority." But this bill, in time of peace,- makes martial law operate as though we were in actual war, and become the cause instead of the con sequence of the abrOgation of civil author ity. One more quotation : "It follows from what has-been said on this subject that there are occasions when martial law can be properly applied. If in foreign invasion or civil war the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to adniinister criminal justice, according to law, then on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society ; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by mar tial rule until the laws can have their free course." I now quote from the opinion of the minority of the Court, delivered by Chief Justice Chase : " We by no means assert that Congress can assert and apply the laws of war 1 1 where no , war has been declared, or ex ists. Where peauk exists, the laws of.. peace mast prevail." This is sufficiently explieit.• 'Peso ex isteinell the:territory Lo whieb this bill tlppliim. It asserts a power In Congress In tires of pone set sable the Ivry of peace, and to substitute the laws of war. The mipority concurring with the major ity declares that Congress does not pos. seas that power. Again, and if possible, more emphatic, the Chief Justice with re- markable clearness and condensation,surns up the whole matter as follows :.. "There are, under the Constitution, three kinds of military jurisdiction, one to be exercised both in peace and war, an• other to be exercised in lime of foreign war, without the boundaries of the Uni- ted States, or in time of rebellion,or civil war within States or districts occupied by rebels treated as beligerants, and a third to be exercised in time of invasion or in- surreotion within the limits of tho United States, or during rebellion within the lim its of the States maintaining adhesion to the national government, when the public danger requires its exercise. The first of these may be called jurisdiction under military law, and is found in acts of Con- gress prescribing rules and articles of war or otherwise providing for the govern. ment of the national forces. The second may be distinguished_ as military govern ment, superceding as far as may be deem. ed expedient the local law, and exercised by the military commander, under the di rection of the President, with the express or implied sanction of Congress. While the third may be denominated martial law proper, and is called into action by Congress, or temprarily, when the ac tion of Congress cannot be invited, and in the case of justifying or excusing peril, by the President; in times of insurrection or invasion ; or of civil or foreign war within districts or localities where ordin- ary law no longer adequately secures pub lic safety and private rights." It will be observed that of the three kinds of military jurisdiction which can be exercised or created under our Consti- tution, there is but one that can prevail in time of peace, and that is the code of laws enacted by Congress for the govern. meat of the national forces. That body of military law has no application to the citizen, nor oven to the citizen soldier en- rolled in the militia in time of peace. But this bill is not a part of that sort of mili tary law, for that applies only to the sol dier and not to the wizen, while contrari wise the military law provided by this bill applies only to the citizen and not to the soldier. I need not say to the renresientatiees of non forbids the exercise of judicial power in any way but one, that is, by the or dained and established courts. It is equal ly well known that in criminal cases a tri al by jury is made indispensable by the express words of that instrument. I will not enlarge on the inestimable value of the right thus secured to every free man, or speak of the danger to public liberty in all parts of the country, which must en sue from a denial of it anywhere or upon any pretense. A very recent decision of the Supreme Court has traced the history, vindicated the dignity, and made known the value of this great privilege, so clear ly that nothing more is needed. To what extent a violation of it might be excused in time of war or public danger, may ad mit of discussion. But we are providing , now for a time of profound peace, when there is not an armed soldier within our borders, except those who are in the ser vice of the g overnment . It is in such a condition of things that an act of Con gress is proposed, which, if carried out, would deny a trial by the lawful courts and juries to nine millions of American citizens and to their posterity for an inde finite period. It seems to be impossible that. auy one should seriously believe this consistent with a Constitution which de clares in simple, plain, and unambiguous language, that all persons shall have that right, and that no person shall ever, in any case, be deprived of it. The Constitution also forbids the ar rest of the citizen, without judicial war rant founded on probable cause. This bill authorizes an arrest without warrant, at the pleasure of a military commander. The Constitution declares that "no per ' son shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on 1 presentment by a grand jury." This bill holds every person not a soldier answera ble for all crimes and all charges without 1 any presentment. 1 The Constitution declares that "no Iperson shall be deprived of life, liberty or I property, without duo process of law. '— I, This bill sets aside all process of law, and makes the citizen answerable, in his per ! son and property, to the will of one man, I and as to his life, to the will of two. Finally, the Constitution declares that " The privilege of the writ of habeas cor pus shall not be suspended unless when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it ;" whereas this bill requires martial law, which of itself sus pends this great writ in time of peace,and authorizee militaTy to make the ar rest, and give o the prisoner only one 1 privilege, and th t; is a trial without un necessary delay. He has no hope of re lease from oust ° y, except the hope, snob as it is, of release by acquittal before a military commission. The United Ste l e are bound to "guarantee to each State a republican %rye of govemixtent. , ' Can it be, pfetenclact thabibis Wigs: tion io DO palpably britken, if we carry out ix metts. , ire axe tote,' Link wipes rzray tYOLUME XXIV, NUMBER 12. every vestige - cif Republican government in ten States, and puts the life, property, liberty and honor of - the:people, in each of them, under the 'domination of a idi j ila person clothed with unlintited authority. The Parliament of England, exercising the omnipotent power which it claimed. was accustomed to pass bills of attainder —that is, it would convict men of treason and other crimes by legislative enact ment. The person accused, had a hear ing, sometimes a patient, and a fair one, but generally party prejudice prevailed instead of justice. It, often became ne cessary for Parliament to acknowledge its error, and reverse its own action. The fathers of our country determined that no such thing should occur here. They with. held the power from Congress, and thas forbade its exercise by tile and they provided in the Constitution that no State should pass any bill of attainder.— It, is therefore impossible for any, person in this country to be constitutionally pun ished for any crime by a legislative pro- ceeding of any sort. Nevertheless, here is a bill of attainder against nine millions of people at once. It is based upon an so- cusation so vague as_to be scarcely intel ligible, and found to be true upon no credible evidence; not one of the nine millions was heard in his own defense.— The representatives of the doomed par. ties were excluded from all participation in the trial. The conviction is to be fol. lowed by the most ignominious punish ment ever inflicted on large masses of men. It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands, and degrades them all, even those who are admitted to be guiltless, from the rank of free men to the condi- tion of slaves. The purpose and object of the bill, the general intent which 'per. vades_ it from beginning to end, is to change the entire structure and character of the State governments, and to compel them by force to the adoption of organio aws and regulations which they are un• willing to accept, if left to themselves.= The Degrees have not asked for the priv ilege of voting; the vast =jerky of them have no idea what it means. This bill not only thrusts it into their hands, but com pels them as well as the whites to %mitt in a particular way. If they do not form a Constitution with prescribed articles in it, and afterwards elect a Legislature which will act upon certain measuresjn rtres,crihea ata v _nal. the slavery which the bill imposes upon them. Without stopping to consider the policy or impolicy of Africanizing the Southern part •of our territory, I would• simply ask the attention of Congress to that manifest, well known and universally acknowledged rule of Constitutional-law, which declares that the Federal govern ment has no jurisdiction, authority or power to regulate such subjects for any State. To force the right of auffiage out of the bands of the white people, and into the hands of the negroes, is an arbitrary violation of this prin6pie. The bill imposes martial law at once, and its operations will begin as soon as tho_ general ' and his troops caniiit put in place. The dread alternative - be tween its harsh rule, and compliance with the terms of this measure, is not suspend ed, nor the people afforded time for de liberation- The bill says to them—Take martial law first ; then deliberate. And when they have done all that this meas ure requires them to do, other conditions and contingencies, over which they have no control, yet remain to be fulfilled; be fore they can be relieved from martial law, another Congress must first approve the Constitutions made in conformity with the will of this Congress, and must declare these States entitled to represen tation in both houses. The whole question thus remains open and unsettled, and must again occupy the attention of Congress ; and in the mean time the agitation which now previiils will continue to disturb all portions of the people. The bill also denies the legality of the governments of ten of the States which participated in the ratification of the amendments to the Federal Constitution abolishing slavery forever within the ju risdiction of the llnited States, and prim ticallrexcludes them from the Union.. If this assumption of the bill be correct, their concurrence cannot be considered as having been legally given; and the int cortant fact is made to appear that the onsent of three•foarths of the States, the requisitd number, has not been constitu. tionally obtained to the ratification of that amendment, thus leaving the ques- tion of slavery where it. stood before the amendment was officially declared to have become a part of the Constitution. That the measure proposed by this bill doe's vi olate the Constitution in the particulars mentioned, and in many . other ways that I tbrbeatto 'enumerate, is too clear to ad mit of the least doubt. It only remains to consider ,whethei. the injunctions of that. instrument ought to be obeyed or not. I think thorough to be obeyed, for reasons which I will proceed to give as briefly as possible..ln the:first place, it is the only syetem or free . government which lietnirfloTteAo havetai a nation ; wheat if ceases tole the rule of-our coridunt, lie msy,pnrjtao, take oat deice betiteeu coinplstii~ an Chlo e al cansulidated deepothitione *al MMEMBI
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers