Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

!

:

the most unsuspecting confidence-the inta- the fervour of the moment can make the neople macies of friendship, or the recesses of domes-insensible to these agressions. It is a honest tic retirement, afford no security [especially, noble warmth, produced by an indignant sense as we have seen, when a hundred armed men of injury. It will never, I trust, be extinct, surround the domicile of a man and seize and while there is a proper cause to excite it; but carry him off at the dead hour of night]-the the people of America, sir, though watchful companion whom you most trust the friend against foreign agression, are not careless of in whom you confide-the domestic who waits domestic encroachment; they are as jealous, in your chamber, are all tempted to betray sir, of their liberties at home, as of the power your imprudence, or guardless follies-to mis- and prosperity of their country abroad; they represent your words; [as the spies and dela- will awake to a sense of their danger; do not tors did those of Vallandigham] to convey let us flatter ourselves then, that these measthem, distorted by calumny, to the secret tri-ures will be unobserved or disregarded. Do bunal, where jealousy presides-where fear officiates as accuser, and suspicion is the only evidence that is heard.

"These, bad as they are, are not the only ill consequences of these measures; among them we may reckon on the loss of wealth, of population, and of commerce. Gentlemen who support the bill, seemed to be aware of this, when yesterday they introduced a clause to secure the property of those who might be ordered to go off; they should have foreseen the consequences of the steps they have been taking; it is now too late to discover, that large sums are drawing from the banks, that a great capital is taken from commerce. It is ridiculous even to observe the solicitude they show to retain the wealth of these dangerous men, whose persons they are so eager to get rid of; if they wish to retain it, it must be by giving them security to their persons, and assuring them that while they respect the laws, the laws will protect them from arbitrary power; it must be, in short by rejecting the bill on your table. I might mention many other inferior considerations; but I ought, sir, rather to entreat the pardon of the house, for having touched on this: compared to the breach of our constitution, and the establishment of arbitrary power, every other topic is trifling; arguments of convenience sink into nothing; the preservation of wealth, the interests of commerce, however, weighty on other occasions, here lose their importance. When the fundamental principles of freedom are in danger, we are tempted to borrow the impressive language of a foreign speaker, and exclaim-"Perish our commerce; let our constitution live:"-Perish our riches; let our freedom live. This, sir, would be the sentiment of every American, were the alternative between submission and wealth; but here, sir, it is proposed to destroy our wealth, in order to ruin our commerce. Not in order to preserve our constitution, but to break it-not to secure our freedom, but to abandon it.

"I have now done, sir; but, before I sit down let me intreat gentlemen seriously to reflect before they pronouuce the decisive vote, that gives the first open stab to the principles of our government. Our mistaken zeal, like that of the patriarch of old, has bound the victim; it lies at the foot of the altar; a sacrifice of the first-born offspring of freedom is proposed by those who gave it birth. The hand is already raised to strike, and nothing I fear but the voice of heaven can arrest the impious blow.

"Let not gentlemen flatter themselves, that

not let us be told, sir, that we excite a fervour against foreign agression, only to establish tyanny at home, that, like the arch traitor, we cry, "Hail, Columbia," at the moment we are betraying her to destruction; that we sing out "happy land," when we are plunging it in ruin or disgrace; and that we are absurd enough to call ourselves "free and enlightened," while we advocate principles that would have disgraced the age of Gothic barbarity, and establish a code, compared with which the ordeal is wise, and the trial by battle is merciful and just"

WHO WAS EDWARD LIVINGSTON?

The author of the foregoing speech was the son of an eminent patriot of the Revolutionwas elected twice to Congress from New York city-was appointed by Mr. Jefferson as the United States District Attorney for New York -was elected Mayor of New York in 1801, and Judge of a very important municipal court He was Aid-de-camp to General JACKSON at New Orleans-was the author of the Louisiana code-author of a famous criminal code, which fixed his reputation among the foremost jurists in the land. In 1823 Mr. LIVINGSTON was elected to Congress from Louisiana, which place he held till 1829, when he was elected to the Senate from that state. In 1831 General JACKSON appointed him his Prime Minister,in which capacity he wrote the celebrated antinullification message. In 1833, Gen. JACKSON appointed him Minister to France, where he acquitted himself with great credit, and to the entire satisfaction of the hero of New Orleans.

This was the man who in 1798 so eloquently denounced that bold attempt to turn this Government into a despotism, and which has been. so faithfully imitated by the present Administration.

REPUBLICAN CONFESSIONS.

The following article was prepared by us, and published in the Wisconsin Patriot, Nov. 29, 1862. As it shows both sides, and we might not be able to improve on the arguments presented, we transfer it to these pages:

King RICHARD, the hunchback, pled ignorance of the murder of the Heir-Apparent, in the Tower, and wondered who could have done so foul a deed-after he himself had bribed his ready-made tool, BUCKINGHAM, to the awful regicide. We repeat, it is too late in the day for the pensioned organs of the Administration to plead ignorance on its part, of the infamous enormities committed by a generally unprincipled set of Provost Marshals, appointed without the least public necessity, so far as the loyal North is concerned.

That the abolitionists deeply feel the effect of | mities committed by her perjured minions, but the popular verdict against the unblushing history holds her guilty of all, for having plantyranny; and usurpation, by which the Admin- ned the general crusade against the personal istration has filled its bastiles with innocent rights of her subjects. victims of party hate, is too plain for dispute. When Mrs. BRINSMADE, an artless, beautiful and giddy wife of 22 years, was chased about from city to city and finally arrested without a shadow of suspicion against her and caged with common criminals and burglars in a common police station, in New York, the abolition press heralded her arrest as an evidence that the Administration was sharp after traitors and traitoresess, and much fiendish satisfaction was indulged in by the abolition press at the incarceration of this defenseless female. She was locked up as aforesaid for near fifty days, and closely watched, and all entreaties by respectable ladies of New York and Brooklyn to see her and give her such necessaries as she might be suffering for, were peremptorily refused by the black hearted jacobin who held her a prisoner. She had many respectable and loyal friends, who sought to procure for her a speedy trial, and if she could not be found guilty, to relieve her from her loathsome prison, and thus save reproach on the American character, but all to no purpose. She was held in durance vile until the elections thundered at the gates of criminal power, and then, and not until the thunder of the ballot had been heard all over the land, and the Belshazzars of power began to tremble with very fear, was this lady, guilty of no crime, permitted to "go in peace" with no charges against her. Then the Administration organs began to plead the "Baby Act." They declared the Administration knew nothing of her arrest. But this had better be told to the marines, for the fact of the arrest of this female was heralded through the public press all over the North, and the Administration knew perfectly well that she was a prisoner, and they knew also that no charges had been filed against her, for so the pettifogging journals assert.

:

Never, since our forefathers baptized the tea in Boston harbor, has our country been so disgraced, as by these arbitrary, unnecessary, despotic and unconstitutional arrests. It is too late in the day for the Administration to plead ignorance of specific arrests. It will avail them nothing in that awful blistering history which time is writing out. Queen ELIZABETH often pled ignorance of certain enor

By the plainest principles of the common law, handed down as judicial heir looms, by JUSTINIAN and other law givers, if a man turns loose a vicious animal, he is responsible to his neighbor for any damage that may be committed, though he might have known nothing of the depredations! So with the President of the United States. Without the authority of law-without warrant of any kind— without the poor plea of "military necessity" he has let loose upon our loyal society a set of vagabonds, who have committed the grossest outrages on decency and personal rights, and he must be responsible to an outraged people for the wrongs committed. He has sent the arrow quivering from the bow, and though its poisoned blade hits an object he did not aim at, he must bear the guilt of its ravages.

We have another strong case in point, of Mahoney, editor of the Dubuque Herald, who was arrested at two o'clock at night, and hurried off to the Old Capitol building, as a political prisoner, right under the very eye of the president. The Milwaukee Sentinel, whose editor is an appointee of the president, and of course pocket-bound to do his bidding, undertakes to put in another Baby-Act plea for the president. In speaking of Mahoney, who was liberated only by the thunder of the ballot box, as mysteriously as Paul and Silas were from the Jewish prison, the stipendiary editor says:

"He has been incarcerated but a short time, and with others, has been set free without question. Were there a disposition to tyrannize on the part of the government, and had Mahoney been arrested under the dictate or impulse of that spirit, it is altogether probable that he would have been detained, and not liberated as he was. The president, nor none of

him

of the Administration, but to wait till the great states of the North had demanded by the potent ballot-"formidable to tyrants only”—that the oppressed innocent should go free-the act of

sity.

But, says this Custom House organ:

his subordinates, he says, was willing to take the responsibility of his arrest. It is not likely they would have shrunk from any such responsibility, if any disposition to oppress had caused the arrest. "The Government is obliged in existing emer-liberation was no virtue, but a cowardly necesgencies to trust a vast deal of discretion to subordinates-which subordinates have generally from the necessities of the case, been very hastily appointed, and in many cases lack the discretion required in the position. They do very foolish things, the arrest of Mahoney and others of the same stamp being among those foolish things. But the Government neither endorses or sanctions it. The moment Mahoney's case was reached, and the groundlessness and foolishness of the complaints against him were discovered, he was liberated. He complains that he does not yet know for what crime he was arrested. By acquitting him without question -the Government confesses substantially he was guilty of no crime. The moment the fact is ascertained he is liberated."

"The Government is obliged, in existing emergencies, to entrust a vast deal of discretion to subordinates; and those subordinates, hastily appointed, often lack discretion, and do very foolish things; the arrest of Mahoney being among these foolish things," &c.

Now, we deny that the Government is obliged in the existing emergencies, in any state north of the Ohio and Potomac, to appoint-"hastily" or otherwise--any officers to arrest people at their will. The necessity does not, and never has existed. It is not within the power of any organ of the Administration to show that in any single instance, here in the North, the duties of a Provost Marshal are necessary. Among all the thousands of victims they have arrested, we have heard of not one that has been proven guilty, and we take it no maneven under the pressure of the highest salary --will plead for the necessity of arresting in'nocent men and women. But the plea of "hasty It is worse appointment" is the baby act over. than a baby's plea, for the appointments have been made with no more haste than thousands of other appointments. No, the people will not

This whole plea is as weak as it is babyish. It exhibits an evident consciousness of guilt, and overzealousness to avoid its natural consequences. This paid organ says.that MAHONEY "was incarcerated only a short time." If the editor of that sheet was incarcerated, in a loathsome cell, on prison diet for over three months, we hardly think he would call it a "short time. But short or long, the principle is the same. And now says this organ, "he, with others, has been set free without question!" Exactly! Exactly! They did not even ask him whether he was guilty or innocent After begging the Administration for over two months to-cannot-except that plea. But the offer of give him a trial, or at least let him know the pretence of his arrest or incarceration, and all the while they refusing to do either, they turn him loose, "without question." Did mortal man ever hear of greater mocking of justice and decency? The man who could deliberately pen an excuse for such diabolical conduct, would be the last to yield in a quarrel over the vesture of his Savior,

The Sentinel attempts to weave the web of probability that the Administration is innocent, by raising the question that if the Administration had really intended oppression, it would not have released Mahoney. What do you call | a two months incarceration without charges of wrong, but oppression? But the "delivery” has no real merit. It was wrung from the Administration by the ballot-box thunder, as the Magna Charta was wrung from King John by his oppressed and determined subjects. If Mahoney had been liberated before the election, it would have put a different phaze on the motive

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

it shows the crying guilt of the party in power. Men always give their best reasons first for evil consequences, and if the Administration has no better reason than its organ tosts to the waiting multitude, it might as well own up, first as last, that this Provost Marshal business was organized--not to serve the nation-but to serve the Abolition party as a threatening engine of oppression, to force the weak and timid to support the Abolition party; but, thank God, they have failed. Provost Marshals are no longer wanted. They have done many "foolish things." Let the Administration discharge them, and thus save its credit while it is possible.

[ocr errors]

"The moment Mahony's case was reached,' says the Sentinel, "the groundlessness and foolishness of the complaints against him were discovered, and he was liberated!"

What do you mean by "reaching" the case? That would indicate a kind of hearing, but nothing of the kind occurred, and as for the

"groundless and foolishness of the complaint," that is all moonshine, for no complaint was ever lodged against him, and this the Sentinel admits. From the start there was nothing charged against him, and this the Administration knew, for MAHONY was almost daily asking the Administration what he was arrested for. We never knew a weaker argument and a more atrocious case than is here presented. The organ says that "By aequitting without question the government confesses substantially he was guilty of no crime!" And the government knew this the moment he was incarcerated, as well as the moment when they gave the order for his release. We hardly think the Sentinel will claim that the government arrests its victims in hopes to hunt up afterwards charges against them. This would be re-enacting the bloody and damnable deeds of the old Conceigierre, in France, where they dug the graves, made the coffins, then sent out their provost marshals to hunt up the victims to fill them. "The moment he is found to be guilty of no crime,” says this organ, "he is liberated." Now, how did the government arrive at the conclusion that he was innocent just at that particular time? No court or tribunal had been organized to determine the fact. No witnesses had been sworn-no charges preferred, and yet all at once-just after the election the Administration found out that MAHONY was guilty of no crime, and he was set at liberty! What a mockery of common sense and justice!

From MAHONY's case, the Sentinel offers the Baby Act plea in reference to Mrs. BRINSMADE's case, as follows:

"The case of Mrs. Brinsmade, in New York, is one in point. Some official, (it is not yet certain who, but supposed to be Marshal Kennedy,) took the responsibility of arresting Mrs. Brinsmade and locked her up. The case was finally brought to the attention of the authorities, and she was promptly released. None denounce the arrest more heartily and pointedly than the immediate friends of the Administration."

Yes, yes, "some official" did take the responsibility-but he took it from the President's order commanding the arrest of all persons for disloyal practices"-his appointees to be the sole judges. There is where the responsibility came from. Mrs. B's case "was finally brought to the attention of the authorities," eh? Yes, as soon as the elections, had opened their eyes and their ears, and set their

hearts to palpitating, then they listened to the appeals of the poor, weak woman, and not before. If so flagitious and iniquitous an arrest. had been made, and a young and beautiful female so long imprisoned in a common ward station house, without authority from headquarters, think you the scoundrel who did it would wear the star of office another hour? No, he would be instantly dismissed, and a decent man put in his place, but he is still kept in office, a sufficient fact to our mind to warrant the belief that he is wanted for other nasty jobs. But, says the organ, "the immediate friends of the Administration denounce" these outrages, and therefore we must draw the inference that it is guileless. Some of them have denounced them since the election, but not before. We challenge a single case to prove they denounced them before election, but many Democrats did, and for doing so were called "traitors" and "tories" by these same organs. Theirs is a death-bed repentance.— The Ryan Address and Gov. SEYMOUR'S speech denounced these arbitrary and illegal arrests, and for doing so the Sentinel and other abolition sheets-before election-denounced RYAN and Gov. SEYMOUR.

Again, says the Custom-House organ :

"We have felt that a great many foolish, and even oppressive things were being done by these government agents. But the emergency of the government required the creation of agents of the character, and the evils complained of are almost inevitable and inseparable from their appointment. The government, itself, however, has shown no disposition to tyrannize. These agents will learn their duties and learn not to overstep the bounds of a sensible discretion; or, failing in that, will be speedily displaced, and their places filled with better men."

We have seen no displacement of these bad men as yet. The first part of the above paragraph any man of sense and self-respect will say amen to. But it will be hard to convince any man of ordinary intelligence that any possible "emergency" has arisen, or is likely to arise, in the Northern States, whereby this new batch of officers are, or may be necessary. What act have they done, or can they do, (save to violate law and outrage personal rights,) that may not be done by U. S. Marshals, their deputies, or any other civil, executive officer ?What possible necessity has arisen, or can arise, in all human probability, in the loyal states, making it necessary, or even excusable, to ar

know them, at least, will not remove his appointees who are guilty of such gross outrages, then he becomes personally the guilty party, and is inaugurating a system of despotism that may yet cost the loyal North seas of blood to crush out, after it has fairly got a foothold.

rest any man without "due process of law ?"- | after knowing all the facts, as he does now And, what necessity for arresting men without warrant, and suspending the privilege of habeas corpus, except it be the intention to "tyrannize" over men for their political opinion's sake? What possble harm could come to the government, to permit men to be arrested, when charged with some crime, and taken before some competent, civil tribunal, to be tried ?— Does any one believe, a man thus arrested, in any loyal state, and proven guilty, would escape punishment? A bare suspicion of such a thing would be an imputation on the loyalty of citizen jurors, and the fidelity of our judiciary.

We therefore insist, that, no matter what the original intentions, this Provost Marshal business is a gross imposition on the people-an imputation on their loyalty—a political engine, to force political action in violation of political opinions—and until we can be shown some necessity for it—the accomplishment of legitimate Government purposes, that cannot be accomplished by other means, we will denounce it in all its phases as not only "foolish" and "oppressive," but a disgrace to the nineteenth century.

In view of the verdict of the people in the overwhelming political revolution, of '62, the Sentinel had gravely come to the following quite sensible conclusion:

"The nature of our government, as well as the temper of the people, clearly reveal the folly of any attempt at tyranny or abuse of power on the part of those entrusted with the administration."

All of which we endorse without a but or an if. In conclusion, let us suggest, that if the Administration believes that Provost Marshals are necessary, and that it does not intend them to overawe the people in the exercise of their civil and political rights, would not the said Administration remove all incompetents as soon as their "foolish" incompetency was discovered? Few if any greater crimes can be committed against individual rights than to deprive a man of his liberty without cause. And yet, the President don't remove that miserable tyrant, Kennedy, who arrested Mrs. Brinsmade, nor the contemptible wretch that arrested Mahoney who, the Sentinel admits were arrested without cause. Now, if our peacable and law-abiding citizens are to be arrested and plunged into the filth and debris of a military prison, with not even a charge against them, and the President

One word as to what the Sentinel says about the friends of the Administration condemning these "oppressive" outrages. Did the Sentinel denounce the arrest of Mrs. BRINSMADE before the election? Not a bit of it. On the other hand, if our memory is not at fault, it glorified in the arrest of a "she secessionist." Did the Sentinel or State Journal denounce the arrest of MAHONEY before the election?By no means; on the contrary, the latter did, even if the former did not, glory in the arrest of the "traitor MAHONEY." Now, that he is acknowledged to have been innocent, that Jacobin organ is mum. Not a note has it to sound against the outrage-but O, how the Abolition press howled when BooTH and DANIELS, of Wisconsin, were arrested for crimes they gloried in-crimes of "positive defiance" to law, which are to-day the corner stone of the Republican platform of Wisconsin.

Great God! is this that "liberty" we have heard preached so often from Republican pulpits? Is it that "freedom" so often harrangued from Republican rostrums? Is it that "free speech" so often sung in the Republican cloister and peddled through the columns of the Republican press? Is this party of boasted "freedom" about to turn the oppressors and enslavers of the white race, and impose upon it the necessities of becoming "hewers of wood and drawers of water" for Congo masters? Strange that a great party that no longer ago than 1860 had emblazoned on its victorious banners "Liberty and Freedom," should, at the first moment of its drunken success, raise the standard of worse than Roman slavery. Reader, beware, for we have the lesson of the Quakers to guide us, who for centuries preached religious "freedom" and "toleration," and the moment they got the power, they went to hanging and persecuting all who did not believe in their dogmas. The case of Roger Williams is not forgotten-nor will the political debaucheries and vile salvonic persecutions of Abolitionism be forgotten, so long as debased humanity may steal that oft abused word

« AnteriorContinuar »