"What is the legal status of the claim made by the petitioner to remove his case into the Circuit Court of the United States? It is, in my opinion nothing more or less than an attempt to transfer the criminal jurisdiction of the State Court into that of the Federal tribunals. If such is the scope and effect of this act of March 3d, 1863, then I have no hesitation in pronouncing it unconstitutional. If the Congress of the United States have no constitutional power to modify, abolish or repeal the law of a state crime, it is a logical deduction, in my opinion, from which there is no escape, that they are powerless in changing the forum of trial of such crime. Has not Congress the same power to measure and fix the punishment of crime under a state law, or to enact a code of evidence, or practice, for its prosecution, as to erect the forum of trial?” POWERS OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL. The New York Journal of Commerce thus sets forth the cunning devices of the conscription act, by means of the created Provost Marshals, to act as spies, detectives, &c.: "This Provost Marshal General will be one of the most tremendous officials in the country. The bill allows him and the Secretary of War to do pretty much as they please with the rights and liberties of the citizen. There are three things which these Provost Marshals are specially required to do: "One is, to arrest deserters, and send them to the nearest commander, which is necessary and proper. "The second is, to enquire into and report all treasonable practices. If this means anything, it means that the Provost Marshal may employ any number of spies, like a veritable little tyrant, to pry into the private affairs of any person whom, in his high mightiness, he choses to suspect of treasonable practices.' If he happens to be a fierce radical, he may take the liberty of regarding every conservative as essentially a traitor-this being the prevalent view of the radical organs on that subject. The bill says nothing about the forcible entry of houses; but that will undoubtedly be authorized in the 'rules and regulations' of the great functionary, the Provost Marshal General. "The third duty of the Provost Marshal is, to 'detect, seize and confine spies.' This is a puzzler, and comes very queerly, after the paragraph authorizing the Provost Marshals to employ spies of their own to any extent. Interpreted literally, and meaning real spies, who come over from the enemy to inspect the strength of our forces, and the armament of our fortifications, it is a just and necessary regulation. The objection to it lies in this fact that the Provost Marshal, or his superior is made the sole judge of what, and who, is a spy, and can arrest and confine him without judge or jury. "A Provost Marshal who holds that every conservative is a traitor, may also hold that some conservatives are constructively 'spies.'' Ifa Provost Marshal wanted to arrest a conservative and put him in a fort, where he could stay out the balance of the war, nothing would be easier than to make a vague accusation that, at some time or other, he had communicated with some individual who is regarded as being traitorous in his proclivities. This would make the poor man constructively a spy. But the Provost marshal, and those above him, need not give explanations, unless they please. They may presume any man a spy-in the employment and confidence of the enemy, and arrest and imprison him. "All this is the most odious kind of martial law. It is wrong to impose it on this quiet and pecceful North." THE CASE OF JUDGE CONSTABLE. The papers and facts in this case are too voluminous to record in this work. We shall have to content ourself with a brief statement of the facts. The laws of Illinois declare it kidnapping to arrest a person without authority of law. In March, 1863, two persons were brought before Judge CONSTABLE, of the 4th Judicial Circuit statutes against kidnapping. The proof against of Illinois, charged with having violated the them was conclusive. They had arrested certain persons, without showing any authority therefor. The Judge, as The Judge, as it was his sworn duty, held them for trial. For thus exercising his duty, Judge C. was seized, and forcibly carried away from the duties of his office, and after having been kept in durance a long while, was finally liberated--no proof, or even charge of wrong appearing against him. LIBERATED FROM THE BASTILE. The following, from the Pittsburgh Post covers a great variety of cases, and we copy it as a sample: These "A number of gentlemen who were incarcerated (Mahony and others) in a loathsome prison in Washington, upon imaginary charges and released the other day, without explanation, passed through our city last evening on their way to their respective homes. enlarged captives paid us a a visit yesterday, and we refer the reader to our local column for an account of their incarcerazioa, mal-treatment and release. Let the reader peruse this statement, and then reflect that it is not an extract from the history of England during the 'War of Roses,' nor a chapter depicting the on the 27th of August, in the course of which he said: "The draft in New York is going on. There are forty-four noble and loyal regiments there to help the Government enforce the draft, and there is not a soldier among them who would not rather shoot a copperhead [a term applied to the Democrats generally]-put a bullet through his brains--than a rebel soldier." Such atrocious sentiments might have garnished the bloody nomenclature of a DANTON, a ROBESPEIRRE, or a MARAT, but in our free America, they sound like the Indian war whoop that precedes the barbarous carnival of torture. WILSON has no doubt been reading and feeding his blood-thirsty spirit on DANA's Bucchaneers. THE PRISONS FULL. horrors of the Bastile of the French Revolu- The following appeared among the tele ment ! "It would appear, indeed, that human nature is the same always, and that the tortures inflicted by a Robespeirre are to be equalled in a more civilized country than that of Paris in his day, but the occasion which produces such monsters always creates an avenger of the people's injuries, and sooner or later vengeance overtakes their oppressors. Heaven grant that there may be no such trial in store for our groaning country, and that no dramatist may hereafter find in the present troubles of our nation incidents upon which to build more bloody dramas than have been written upon the horrid proceedings of the French Revolution, and the atrocious secrets of her Bastile." ATROCIOUS SENTIMENTS. During the canvass of 1863, Senator WILSON, of Massachusetts, spoke at Brunswick, Me., "CINCINNATI, June 2d, 1863. "All the Dayton prisoners, including W. T. Logan, editor of the Dayton Empire, have been released from prison. Two hundred and fifty prisoners are still in confinement." OTHER ACTS OF DESPOTISM.. On the 18th of February, 1863, a political State Convention met at Frankfort, Ky., to nominate state officers. No one ever did or ever could bring a charge, substantiated, against one of the delegates to that Convention, that he or they were disloyal to the Government of the Union. They met as loyal citi 'peacably assemble" zens had a right to under the First Article of the Amendments of the Constitution of their country. But one Col. GILBERT, no doubt actuated "By Authority" issued "General Order No. 31" commanding them to Disperse, and forbidding them to make nominations, under penalty of military vengeance. We have the authority of the Chicago Journal (Rep.) of February 19, 1863, that this Colonel made a speech, in which he told them it would be useless to nominate, for their nominess should not be permitted to run, or to hold office if elected. We have other evidences of the intention of those in power to plunge us into a Military Despotism, some of which we shall present under another head. All these acts of despotism were endorsed by the radical press. We have before us, numerous articles in proof, but for want of room we present the following as a sample, from the Janesville (Wis.) Gazette, of June 9, 1863. "Our doctrine is that in war the laws of war are supreme. Our belief is that we are now at war, the whole entire country, and that there is no republic place within the boundaries of the republic where the court martial may not take the place of civil courts and thrust aside the laws of congress, in all things pertaining to the war. Our belief further is that the generals in command, subject to the President, are the only judges of the necessity of the time and occasion when such court martial or order may be properly issued, and no civil court can interfere." This covers the whole ground of despotism, and demands the last sacrifice, and from these extraordinary demands and equally extraordinary exercise of power, we have the "range" of those who are seeking to tyranize over the American people. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS. enacted in Order 33, on purpose to create a But why this outrage on the person of Mr. The President was forced to admit he had committed no offense against the law, and the most that could be said was, that he had From the foregoing evidences, and fifty times more, which we have in our possession, but are compelled to omit, we cannot escape the general conclusion that it is the purpose of those in power and those who control the Administration, to plunge us into despotism-to finally destroy this old Union, and to build up a gov-prematurely advocated peace. Few of his own ernment on its ruins, in accordance with the early motives of a privileged aristocracy, or limited monarchy. The Union as it was, we need never look for again. So the despots in power tell us, and if they can prevent it, that fabric of free government reared by the combined wisdom and through the mutual sacrifices of a race of heroes and statesmen, will never be permitted again to shed the luster of its glory on a people that will soon lament the entire loss of civil liberty. Look at the evidence. Read it by the light of calm reflection, banishing all partizan prejudices, burying all resentment, and tell us, who can, that our liberties are not in danger. Read the evidence that thousands of innocent men and women have been immured in prisons, without charges, without a knowledge of their accusers, without witnesses, judges, jury or trial-kept in durance vile for long months, and then “honorably discharged" and forced, under military duress, to take an oath not to prosecute their persecutors. Can anything be found in the Spanish Inquisition, in the French Reign of Terror, or the Cromwellian "War of Roses," that exceeds this, in the degree of injustice? Read and ponder the VALLANDIGHAM case step by step. The "law of suspected persons" party endorsed his views, though all would welcome the ends, as soon as honor and a united country would accomplish the purpose.---Mr. VALLANDIGHAM never advocated a dissolution of the Union, but Congressman F. A. CONWAY did, yet the latter was unmolested, while the former was exiled. Mr. V. never denounced the Union as a "lie," nor as a "covenant with death-an agreement with hell." But WENDELL PHILLIPS and LLOYD GARRISON did. Mr. V. never said the Union was not worth fighting for," but Secretary CHASE did. Mr. V. never said, "the Union as it was, God forbid," but THAD STEVENS did. Mr. V. never advised a person not to enlist, but the Boston Commonwealth, the organ of CHARLES SUMNER, did, and so did STEPHEN FOSTER. Mr. V. never said that under any circumstances "dissolution would be no misfortune." The Wisconsin State Journal did. Mr. V. never advised resistance to law. Charles Sumner and a great many others did. Mr. V. never said the "Constitution is the cause of all our troubles." HENRY WARD BEECHER did. Mr. VALLANDIGHAM never uttered a sentiment against the Union and the Constitution. Thousands of leading Republicans have done so. Then, why is Mr. VALLANDIGHAM selected as the object of Adminis tration vengeance, and those other men left unmolested. Echo answers, because Mr. V. yotes the Democratie ticket, and the others never refused to sustain the Republican organization. In all the oppressive acts and arbitrary arrests, we do not know of one Republican arrested, nor do we know of one Democrat convicted of a crime against his country. The tone of the Democracy, through their presses, and their leading speakers, even under all the gross provocations calculated to sting men to madness, has been loyal to their government We know of not one that has uttered a disloyal sentiment, or a desire to see the Union dissolved. How different their mode of expression from the great array of speeches, resolves, editorials and sermons we have copied from their opponents, ranging through a long series of years, and yet those who oppose the Democracy have the brazen impudence to claim all the loyalty, while they invest the Democracy with every species of disloyalty. But the people have long since learned to judge of things and principles by what they are and not what they may seem to be. "The man who dares to dress misdeeds A CHALLENGE FOR "LOYALTY." The following appeared in the Wisconsin Patriot of September 15, 1863, and from that day to this no one has claimed the FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS REWARD. M. D. Conway, Mass., C. F. Sedgwick, N. Y., Boston Chronotype, Co., Anson Burlingame, Mass., J. P. Hale, N. H., "Now, all the foregoing are leading Republy extended. We will not dodge behind a mere licans, and the list might be almost indefiniteempty charge, without proof that these men and presses are disloyal to the Government of this Union. We have their blistering record, as written by themselves before us. We have given that record to the public, and our Republican cotemporaries know we can do it again. Hence, they will not call on us for the proof, but being the guilty ones-being disloyal themselves-they seek to escape the indignation of the people by crying 'Copperhead," and 'disloyalty' against the Democracy, just as the thief attempts to escape detection by crying 'stop thief." "Now, then, if it be true, and we dare any man to the test, that no man in the Democratic party can be found, who has ever expressed a desire, in any form, for a dissolution of this Union, and all the above named Republicans have expressed disloyal sentiments, is it not true that the Democratic party is the loyal and the Abolition the disloyal party? We chal "The above reward will be given to any man who will show that any Democrat, north of Masou's and Dixon's line, by word or deed ever advocated a dissolution of the Union, or who ever expressed a desire, wish or thought, favorable to a dissolution under any circumstances ever likely to take place. Now, if the Democratic party is disloyal, they are disloyallenge any man to a full scrutiny of these facts." to the government of the Union, for disloyalty can exist in nothing else, and here is a first rate chance to get paid for the trouble of proving the Democracy or any member of the party disloyal, if it can be done Now, if this cannot be done, and no one claims the reward for the discovery, then the cry of disloyalty against the Democratic party, must be voted a senseless and vile partizan scheme unworthy of honorable men. "On the contrary, we affirm, and no one dare dispute it, that the following named Republicans and Republican papers &c., have, in various ways expressed, either directly, or under certain contingencies, a desire for the dissolution of the Union, viz: THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS-THE PALLA- The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is the most sacred that pertains to human liberties. Sir WILLIAM BLACKSTONE hails it as "the glory of the British Constitution." The right existed in some form all through the primeval and mature existence of civilized Greece and Rome, and the right to be heard in self defense was the corner stone of the Pandects. When tyrants and oppressors abridged, and annually banished this inestimable right from Then, in 1679 came the habeas corpus, &c., upon which Lord CAMPBELL remarked, and we fear Americans must blush to own the truth of that proud boast, that the Peninsular, the Roman Empire faded into obscurity. When the Saracens were driven out of Gaul, the habeas corpus was snuffed out and the sun of liberty sat to rise no more for long years. The Normands under the Feudal Dy--"personal liberty has been more effectually nasty refused to recognise this sacred right, guarded in England than it has in any other and its denial cost more than one tyrant his country in the world." head, and convulsed Europe for ages, until the Anglo Saxon spirit rose in the majesty of its strength, and wrung from King JOHN over six hundred years ago, the Magna Charta of British liberty. The people had been seized and imprisoned without accusation or trial, and rising as one man, demanded a constitutional pledge that their personal liberties, should be secured from such outrages. That trembling monarch at first refused and scorned the public clamor and complaints, bu.when he saw the block from which his guilty and tyranical head was soon to roll, he yielded, and thus was wrung from him the following pledge, which has ever been the pride, the boast and the "key stone" of English liberty: In 1689 came the English "Bill of Rights," matured and enacted by the most profound statesmen and pure patriots that ever breathed in England. These great and exalted men, after they had driven the tyranical James II. from the throne for his repeated violations of the rights of Englishmen, declared him guilty of subverting the laws of the Kingdom, and attempting to destroy the liberties of the people, and in their "true bill" of indictment they thus arraign the would-be tyrant before the British people and the world: "1. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of a Parlia ment. "2. By committing and prosecuting divers "No freeman shall be arrested or imprison-worthy prelates, for humbly petitioning to be ed, or dissiezed (of property), or outlawed, or excused from concurring to the said assumed. banished, or any ways injured, nor will we pass power. sentence upon him, nor send trial upon him, unless by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." "By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament. "All of which," say they, "are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm." These, fellow readers, are the sacred liberties of Englishmen. Their violation has proven fatal tɔ more than one head, garnised by the diadems of power, and yet from time to "The denial of this right," says a distindistin-utes guished statesman, cost one English Monarch his head, another his crown, and a third his most valuable colonies, and to-day if Queen Victoria should attempt to suspend it by telegraph, or by Executive order, of privy council, in any way, she would be a refugee in a foreign land in less than a fortnight." Nearly half a century later this inestimable right was confirmed, and the people were protected by their sovereign immunity from arrests without trial. In 1626, the great law giver, Lord Coke, drew up the celebrated “Petition of Rights," which again confirmed and extended this inestimable right, as follows: "No man, of what estate or condition that he be, shall be put out of his land or tenements, nor arrested nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without being brought to answer BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW." And it was further provided that no "commissioners' should be appointed to try any one "not in the army" by martial law, "lest by color of them, any of his Majesty's subjects be destroyed or put to death, contrary to the laws and franchises of the land." time these rights in England have been partially secured. The great Charter of English freemen was outraged in various ways by the succeeding reigning monarchs, who sought to control the lives and property of persons as well as the government, nor was this great right completely sacred until the beginning of the present century. It was the partial refusal of this right, and sundry and divers enormities committed in violation of the "Great Charter" that sent the Mayflower and its refugee pilgrims to Plymouth Rock who brought over with them, sealed in their liberty-loving hearts, the Magna Charta of English liberty, the key stoneof which was the habeas corpus and a proper trial for all alleged offencs. Twenty years after their landing, in 1641, the infant colony enacted in their "Body of Liberties," that "No man's life shall be taken away, no man's honor or good name shall be stained, no man's |