Imágenes de páginas

There was a terrible hullabaloo raised by the Democrats of Philadelphia when Gen. Schenck made the proprietors of the Evening Journal do just what Gen. Jackson made the editor of the Louisiana Gazette do—publish a little bulletin announcing that what he had said the day before was not true. “This was regarded by the discontented spirits as a new provocation. The “muzzled” editor, in the same number of his paper, relieved his mind by the following comments upon the General's orders: “On Tuesday we published a small handbill containing such information as we had conceived correct, respecting the signing of preliminaries of peace between the American and British Commissioners at Ghent. We have since been informed from Headquarters that the information therein contained is incorrect, and we have been ordered to publish the following to do away the evil that might arise from our imprudence. “Every man may read for himself, and think for himself (thank God! our thoughts are as yet unshackled!) but as we have been officially informed that New Orleans is a camp, our readers must not expect us to take the liberty of expressing our opinion as we might in a free city. We cannot submit to have a censor of the press in our office, and as we are ordered not to publish any remarks without authority, we shall submit to be silent until we can speak with safety—except making our paper a sheet of shreds and patches—a mere advertiser for our mercantile friends.” * “Pretty loud growling,” says the writer, “to come from a muzzled editor.” Why, it is not like a faint echo of the growls that you find in our “muzzled” papers. Take the New York Daily News, the organ of “Phernandiwud,” and see whether this is a whisper in comparison with the growls of that paper or the World. “In this posture of affairs,” continues Mr. Parton, “some of the French troops hit upon an expedient to escape the domination of the general. They claimed the protection of the French consul, M. Toussand; the consul, nothing loth, hoisted the French flag over the consulate and dispensed certificates of French citizenship to all applicants.” Just as a good many consuls during our present war have dispensed certificates of foreign citizenship to men who have been voting among us for years, and are used to hearing modern Democratic speeches inspired by Benedict Arnold's proclamation. “Naturalized Frenchmen availed themselves of the same artifice, and, for a few days, Tous sand had his hands full of pleasant and profitable occupation. Jackson met this new difficulty by ordering the consul and all Frenchmen, who were not citizens of the United States, to leave New Orleans within three days, and not to return within one hundred and twenty miles of the city until the news of the ratification of the treaty of peace was officially published.” He was not going to have a nest of traitors, spies, and dealers in contraband merchandise and intelligence at his heels claiming foreign protection, and he ordered them out of his lines and prohibited them from coming back. But let Parton tell the story: “The register of votes of the last election was resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining who were citizens and who were not. Every man who had voted was claimed by the General as his ‘fellow-citizen and soldier,’ and compelled to do duty as such. “This bold stroke of authority aroused much indignation among the anti-martial law party, which, on the 3d of March, found voice in the public press. A. long article appeared anonymously in one of the newspapers boldly, but temperately, and respectfully calling in question General Jackson's recent conduct, and especially the banishment of the French from the city. Here was open defiance. Jackson accepted the issue with a promptness all his own. He sent an order to the editor of the Louisiana Cowrier, in which the article appeared, commanding his immediate presence at headquarters. The name of the author of the communication was demanded and given. It was Mr. Louaillier, a member of the Legislature.” “At noon on Sunday the 5th of March, two days after the publication of the article, Mr. Louaillier was walking along the levee, opposite one of the most frequented coffee-houses in the city, when a Captain Amelung, commanding a file of soldiers, tapped him on the shoulder and informed him that he was a prisoner. Louaillier, astonished and indignant, called the bystanders to witness that he was conveyed away against his will by armed men. A lawyer, P. L. Morel by name, who witnessed the arrest from the steps of the coffee-house, ran to the spot, and was forthwith engaged by Louaillier to act as his legal adviser in this extremity. Louaillier was placed in confinement. Morel hastened to the residence of Judge Dominick A. Hall, Judge of the District Court of the United States, to whom he presented, in his client's name, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Judge granted the petition, and the writ was immediately served upon the General. Jackson instantly sent a file of troops to arrest the judge, and before night, Judge Hall and Mr. Louaillier were prisoners in the same apartment of the barracks.” This was the same Andrew Jackson for whom the Democrats have all shouted. It is the same Andrew Jackson whose name to-day is attempted to be used as a shibboleth by men who are insulting and spitting upon his memory, and denouncing him as a tyrant and usurper. “So far from obeying the writ of habeas corpus, General Jackson seized the writ from the officer who served it, and retained it in his own possession, giving to the officer a certified copy of the same. Louaillier was at once placed upon his trial before a court-martial.”

“Finally peace came, and it found Louaillier and the Judge still in prison. General Jackson then caused to be issued the following order:-

‘HEADQUARTERS SEVENTH MILITARY DISTRICT, NEW ORLEANs, March 11th, 1815.—Sir : You will detail from your troop a discreet non-commissioned officer and four men, and direct them to call on the officer commanding the 3d United States Infantry for Dominick A. Hall, who is confined in the guard-house for exciting mutiny and desertion within the encampment of the city. - . “Upon receipt of the prisoner, the non-commissioned officer will conduct him up the coast beyond the lines of Gen. Carroll's encampment, and deliver him the inclosed order and set him at liberty. THOMAS BUTLER, Aid-de-camp. ‘Capt. PETER Y. O'GDEN, ‘Commanding troop of cavalry, New Orleans.’

“Inclosed with this order was a laconic epistle from the General to Judge Hall: “I have thought proper,’ said the General, “to send you beyond the limits of my encampment, to prevent a repetition of the improper conduct with which you have been charged. You will remain without the lines of my sentinels until the ratification of peace is regularly announced, or until the British shall have left the Southern coast.’” My honest Democratic friend, what do you say of your leaders who conceal facts of this kind from you, and are trying to tempt you to make war on your country, because the Government has done what every patriot honors Jackson for doing, what every general that has ever commanded a great army has done, and what the Constitution of the United States expressly authorizes to be done when the emergency invites it. Let us now look a little further; for this matter does not end here. This act made Andrew Jackson President. Vindicating its Constitutionality would have made Stephen A. Douglas President; but the Southern rebels knew his devotion to the Union, and ran Breckinridge and Lane for the purpose of preventing his election. I shall show you presently how magnificently Douglas, on the floor of Congress, defended the action of Jackson at New Orleans. On the 22d of March peace had been proclaimed, and Judge Hall, having returned to his district, sat again in his court; and again I refer to Parton for an account of what took place. “On motion of Attorney John Dick, it was ruled and ordered by the court that the said Major-General Andrew Jackson show cause, on Friday next, the 24th March instant, at ten o'clock A. M., why attachment should not be awarded against him for contempt of this court, in having disrespectfully wrested from the clerk aforesaid an original order of the honorable the judge of this court, for the issuing of a writ of habeas corpus in the case of a certain Louis Louaillier, then imprisoned by the said Major-General Andrew Jackson, and for detaining the same: also for disregarding the said writ of habeas corpus, when issued and served; in having imprisoned the honorable the judge of this court; and for other contempts as stated by the witnesses.” General Jackson'had ceased to command an army; the country was at peace; and he did what Mr. Lincoln and his “hirelings,” even down to McClellan, will do when the war is over: he respected the civil law. He walked into the court room as the summons was served. The scene is thus described:— “General Jackson appeared in court attended by a prodigious concourse of excited people. He wore the dress of a private citizen. “Undiscovered amidst the crowd,' Major Eaton relates, “he had nearly reached the bar, when being perceived, the room instantly rang with the shouts of a thousand voices. Raising himself on a bench, and moving his hand to procure silence, a pause ensued. He then addressed himself to the crowd; told them of the duty due to the public authorities; for that any impropriety of theirs would be imputed to him, and urged, if they had any regard for him, that they would, on the present occasion, forbear those feelings and expressions of opinion. Silence being restored, the judge rose from his seat, and remarking that it was impossible, nor safe, to transact business at such a moment, and under such threatening circumstances, directed the Marshal to adjourn the court. The General immediately interfered, and requested that it might not be done. ‘There is no danger here ; there shäll be none—the same arm that protected from outrage this city, against the invaders of the country, will shield and protect this court, or perish in the effort.’” * And I say for Abraham Lincoln that his brave heart and wise head now engaged in preserving our country will, when the war is over (as it will be in a few months, if Phil. Sheridan, and Grant, and Sherman go on as they have done lately), preserve and defend the liberties of each and every citizen. . “Tranquillity was restored, and the court proceeded to business. The district attorney had prepared, and now presented, a file of nineteen questions to be answered by the prisoner. ‘Did you not arrest Louaillier?’ ‘Did you not arrest the judge of this court’ ‘Did you not seize the writ of habeas corpus?’ ‘Did you not say a variety of disrespectful things of the judge?' These nineteen interrogatories the General utterly refused to answer, to listen to, or to receive. He told the court that in a paper previously presented by his counsel he had explained fully the reasons that had influenced his conduct. That paper had been rejected without a hearing. He could add nothing to that paper. “Under these circumstances,’ said he, ‘I appear before you to receive the sentence of the court, having nothing further in my defence to offer.’ - - “Whereupon, Judge Hall pronounced, the judgment of the court. It is recorded in the words following: ‘On this day appeared in person Major-General Andrew Jackson, and being duly informed by the court that an attachment had issued against him for the purpose of bringing him into court, and the district attorney having filed interrogatories, the court informed General Jackson that they would be tendered to him for the purpose of answering thereto. The said General Jackson refused to receive them, or to make any answer to the said interrogatories. Whereupon the court proceeded to pronounce judgment, which was that Major-General Jackson do pay a fine of one thousand dollars to the United States.’ “Upon reaching his quarters, Jackson sent back an aid-de-camp to the court-room, with a check on one of the city banks for a thousand dollars; and thus the offended majesty of the law was supposed to be avenged.” ** It does, in spite of all the suggestions of my competitor, seem that courts are of some use, even in countries where the habeas corpus may be suspended in order to maintain the military power. While war continued, the military power was maintained. When the war ceased, the most popular and successful general of the war walked into court a prisoner, in the custody of the Deputy Marshal of the District. And while this war continues, with armed rebellion in the South, and hundreds of thousands of men in the North are aiding the rebels by discouraging enlistments, destroying confidence in the Government, and by every means in their power embarrassing military movements, the habeas corpus must at times be suspended, to maintain the Constitution, which provides for its suspension in just such times. Now, my friends, begging the Democratic party no longer to desecrate the grave and memory of Jackson, imploring its leaders to take their vile tongues off the fame of that great chieftain of our country and of their party, I pass to the new-made grave of Stephen A. Douglas. In 1844, Charles J. Ingersoll, a Democratic representative in Congress from the city of Philadelphia, whose kinsmen and descendants still live among us, introduced a bill to refund the amount of that fine to Gen. Jackson. It had been paid in 1815; and during the first session of the Twenty-eighth Congress, in January, 1844, Mr. Ingersoll, wishing to vindicate the Constitution and the people of the United States from the wrong that had been done them by Judge Hall, introduced a bill to refund the amount of that fine to Andrew Jackson. Among the ablest advocates of the bill was Stephen A. Douglas; and on January 6, 1844, he made a speech, from which I am about to read you some extracts. He said:— “He was not one to admit that General Jackson violated the Constitution, or the law, at New Orleans. He denied that he violated either. He insisted that the General rightfully performed every act that his duty required, and that his right to declare martial law and enforce it resulted from the same source, and rested on the same principle, that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Barnard) asserted, from which Judge Hall derived the authority to punish for contempt without trial, without witnesses, without jury, and without anything but his own arbitrary will. The gentleman asserted that the power to punish for contempt was not conferred by the statute, or by the common law, but was inherent in every judicial tribunal and legislative body; and he cited the authority of the Supreme Court to support the assertion. He said that this power was necessary to the courts, to enable them to perform the duties which the laws intrusted to them, and arose from the necessity of the case.” The modern peace men, who stand on Arnold's premises, tell you that there is no such thing as “necessity”—“military necessity.” Now, here you have Judge Douglas arguing that the judge on the bench must issue the writ to punish for contempt, because the power to do so springs from necessity; otherwise he could not execute many of his orders. Mr. Douglas continues:– “It was from the same source that the power to declare martial law was derived—its necessity in time of war for the defence of the country.” Douglas believed in “military necessity;” so does every Democrat that has not yielded to Calhoun and become the pliant tool of the Southern rebels. Mrs. Nickleby said that Smike was “the most biddablest creature in the world,” and after the Democratic party yielded to the dictation of the Southern slave-drivers, it became just about as biddable a creature as Smike: it did whatever the Southern Nicklebys told it to do. And thus it has taken to denouncing all the doctrines held by the great founders and leaders of the party. , Douglas's whole argument was to show the constitutionality of Jackson's conduct under the plea of military necessity. He continued:— “The defence of the lives and liberties of the people, as well as their property, being all intrusted to the discretion of the commanding general, it became his duty to declare martial law, if the necessity of the case required it. If it became necessary to blow up a fort, he was authorized to do it; if it became necessary to sink a vessel, he was authorized to do it. The necessity of the case was the law to govern him; and he, on his responsibility, must judge of the existence of that necessity. It was the first law of nature which authorized a man to defend his own person, and his wife and his children, at all hazards.” In conclusion, let me ask if I have not shown that the Democratic peace party of to-day are on the grounds of Arnold, and windicated, however humbly, the memories of Jackson and Douglas against the aspersions cast upon them by the so-called but false Democratic leaders of our country. - - Mr. Northrop followed in a speech of one hour and a half.] Judge Kelley was then again introduced and said:– A word or two, that there may be no misunderstanding. I say to my friend that I mean to answer all his propositions and all his questions; but he will pardon me if I charge him with a little want of candor, not intentional, but casual. I hold in my hand his challenge, and it reads thus:— “You and I have been nominated, by the respective political parties to which we belong, as candidates for Congress in the Fourth District of Pennsylvania. Of course we ask the support of the voters of the District on account of the principles which we severally represent. “In order, therefore, that the people of the District may judge between us in this respect, I propose to you that the citizens of both political parties should be called together, and that we should together address them.” His seven questions I never heard until he had addressed you; and it would have been but frank, if he expected to bind me to them, that he should have given me some intimation of them, and he has no right to harp upon the fact that I do not do what I never agreed to do. But, my friends, I am now but, laying the broad foundations of my side of this discussion. He will find that I will answer all his Questions before he has done with me. Small credit I get from him, however, for doing it; for he told you that I had noticed but two of his propositions, and when I, as courteously as I could, suggested that I had dissented from the third, he said he had not heard me. Yet here in the Bulletin, as the gentlemen of the press have reported me, I find that I took it up and filled nearly a column in commenting upon it. Allow me to request that he will at least do me the honor to listen to what I may hereafter say in reply to him. And now, my friends, see “how plain a tale shall put him down.” Instead of dwelling apon the infamy of the war commenced and continued by the South, which has filled our cities with widows and with orphans, which has maimed I know not how many of you, as well as hundreds and thousands all over the land—which has fattened the soil of the country with the blood of American citizens, he turns and scolds like a very drab at New England, and tells you that Governor Andrew, before he would furnish the quota of Massachusetts, made stipulations. The rebels, for whom the gentleman has no unkind word, fired on Sumter on the 12th of April; on the 15th, your President called for troops; and on the 18th the men of Massachusetts, from two hundred and fifty miles beyond here, marched through our city, taking hasty refreshment at the Girard House, and on the morning of the next day some of them were assassinated in the streets of Baltimore. But three days from the date of the President's proclamation, a regiment, gathered from the plains of Lexington, went through our streets, loyal men cheering them on, to die in Baltimore on behalf of our flag. The gentleman says that Judge Douglas died too soon to make a record on this question. Judge Douglas lived long enough to pledge his support to the present Administration, and to announce that in a great war like this “there is room for but two parties—patriots and traitors.” So he made his record and then died. He does Judge Douglas injustice who says that he died making no sign in the hour of his country's agony. My friend says that “Banks still retains a foothold in Louisiana.” That is lucky; he might have been driven to a gunboat. I have not heard that he has ; nor have I heard that he has even called for the Galena to be sent to that quarter of the country. Yes, he retains a foothold; and over that foothold, the proud Queen City of the Gulf, float the Stars and Stripes, one of those stars representing Pennsylvania and six of them representing despised New England. - . Now, what answer has the gentleman made to my quotation from Mr. Buchanan's message, which was an official document—to my quotation from Attorney-General Black's opinion, which was sentin with that message, and to the fact that the Democratic party planted themselves so firmly upon the doctrines of that message and that opinion that they ostracized any man who dissented from the views therein expressed? What answer has the gentleman made? Why, that New England has been making mouths at the South ever since the government was organized, and that a lot of what he is pleased to denounce as fanatical preachers have said all sorts of queer and foolish things | The gentleman has not pointed you to an instance in which a New England State has organized an army to resist the Government. He has not pointed you to a single instance in which any New England State has built fortifications around any of the forts that protect their harbors, from which to assail them. He has not pointed you to an instance in which a New England State has fired upon your flag; and, oh God! is it not a shame that he should have forgotten that on every field on which a Pennsylvania soldier fighting in behalf of the country, has been wounded or killed, his blood has mingled with that of the brave sons of New England, who rushed promptly, as I have reminded you, to the defence of his country, the whole country, its constitution, and its flag the proudest of the world. He can plagiarize from Fernando Wood's speech what New England men are said to have said, but I can mention a fact which is probably not within the gentleman's knowledge, that when Mr. Wood sent to the clerk's desk in the House of Representatives the pamphlet from which are taken those alleged extracts from Phillips and Garrison and others, the clerk, in reading, came upon pretended citations of the language of members of the House then present, each of whom in turn arose in his seat and denounced the quotations attributed to him as fabrications, and challenged the man who was having them read to show when or where the language imputed to him had been uttered. Rufus Spalding, of Ohio, whom the gentleman professed to quote, was specially severe on Mr. Wood for having an oft-refuted lie republished. And Mr Wood uttered apologetic words on the floor of the House. Yet he seems to have permitted the alleged quotation to go out in his printed speech. Mr. Northrop.–I never saw that speech. Judge Kelley.—You happened to hit upon the same quotations that Fernando made. Mr. Northrop.–That may be. Judge Kelley.—And they were thus denounced one after another. My friend says that Arnold was a New Englander; and I told you the other night that Isaac Toucey, who handed over the better part of your navy to the rebels, was a New Englander. So I put the one against the other. They each tried with all their ability to use the powers conferred upon them by the Government, to break it up. I am not here to advocate New England; but do not let us forget that she is fighting shoulder to shoulder with us to maintain that magnificent patrimony of ours which lies between the Potomac and the Gulf— the Atlantic and the western line of Missouri and Arkansas—that she is fighting to transmit to our posterity even distant Texas; and let us have no more side-winded compliments for Preston S. Brooks, or any other supporter of James Buchanan, Jefferson Davis, and George B. McClellan, at her expense. - He tells you that Judge Douglas excused the suspension of the habeas corpus by Jackson under the special circumstances and under a necessity which then existed. In the extracts which I read to you to-night, Judge Douglas said, “The general alone must be the judge of the necessity.” I shall not read you that passage again; but I refer to another portion of the same speech, in which the ground taken by Judge Douglas is still more elaborately and forcibly stated. “He cared not whether General Jackson suspended all civil authority or not. If his acts were necessary to the defence of the country, that necessity was above all law. General Jackson hazarded everything; he hazarded both life and reputation on that step, which might render him immortal if he saved the country, or on the contrary, make him ignominious, and a by-word, and a reproach ; and the man that dared to do that deserved the protection and plaudits of his country. He did not envy the feelings of that man, that would get up and talk calmly and coolly, under such circumstances, about rules of court and technicalities of proceeding and the danger of example, when the city might be in flames and the utmost barbarity might be committed. What were rules of court, but mere cobwebs when they found an enemy with his cannon at the doors of their courts, and they saw the flames encircling the cupola Ž Talk then about rules of courts, and the formality of proceedings | The man that would do this would fiddle while the Capitol was burning. He envied not any man the possession of such stoical philosophy. Talk about illegality Talk about formalities | Why, there was one formality to be observed, and that was the formality of directing the cannon, and destroying the enemy, regardless of the means, whether it be by the seizure of cannon-bags, or the seizure of persons, if the necessity of the case required it. The God of nature had conferred this right on men and nations; and therefore let him not be told that it was unconstitutional. To defend the country, let him not be told that it was unconstitutional to use the necessary means. The Constitution was adopted for the protection of the country; and under that Constitution, the nation had the right to exercise all the powers that were necessary for the protection of the country. If martial law was necessary to the salvation of the country, martial law was legal for that purpose. If it was necessary for a judge, for the preservation of order, to punish for contempt, he thought it was necessary for a general to exercise a control over his cannon, to imprison traitors, and to arrest spies, and to intercept communication with the enemy. If this was necessary, all this was legal.” Thus it is seen that Judge Douglas did not simply excuse the specific act of General Jackson, but made an argument that will even windicate Gen. McClellan's high-handed acts while a military commander. My friend asks whether Mr. Seward, when the war is over, will walk into court, and submit to the process of the law. Why, certainly; every man who has been serving his country will do so, and I have no doubt that if any of the Maryland secessionists whom General McClellan imprisoned under a suspension of the habeas corpus should sue him, he will go into court and meet the responsibility; because he has read the doctrines of Mr. Douglas, and he knows what Gen. Jackson did under similar circumstances, and how the nation honored him for it. My friend probably does not know that General McClellan was the first to indulge in what the leaders of the McClellan party are pleased to call “interference with elections.” Poor Little Mac must feel very badly when assailed in this way at his own meetings. General McClellan became the Commander of the Army of the Potomac on the 26th of July, 1861. He did not become the Commander-in-Chief of the Armies of the United States until the first

« AnteriorContinuar »