reason for such refusal that you had no right to | The bridges destroyed on the Northern Central interfere with the passage of troops of the Unit- Railroad were at Ashland and Monkton, 16 and ed States through Maryland to the National 18 miles from Baltimore. The parties who deCapital; but in view of the wild excitement stroyed them left Baltimore in omnibuses. The then prevailing, which overwhelmed and defied bridges were fired a little after one o'clock. It the restraints of civil authority, as a measure being impossible for the men to have left Baltiof humanity, and regard for the loyal citizens more after it was alleged my consent was given, of Baltimore, you agreed to unite with the they must have started before my consent was Mayor in a telegraphic despatch to the Presi- asked. Thus showing that the destruction of dent, and to the Governors of the Northern the bridges was determined upon, and would States, invoking them to send no more troops have been consummated, no matter what might through Baltimore while the laws were set at have been my opinion in the premises. As evidefiance. dence of this, I offer the following letter from a highly respectable citizen, who has been kind enough to ascertain the particulars for me: It is alleged that your consent to the destruction of the bridges was given at the residence of the Mayor. Of this, of course, I cannot speak, not having accompanied you there. But if such be the fact, you have committed a most monstrous and improbable inconsistency. If you acquiesced in this work of destruction, you departed (in the Mayor's house) from a principle which in his office, during the trying events of the day, you had consistently and manfully insisted upon: the right of the Government to pass troops through Maryland to the Capital. This sentiment you reiterated on the next day, on board of the steamer Pioneer, as I accompanied you to Annapolis. You can use this statement as you think best. I could make it more full if you wish it. I could allude to the liability of every one in Baltimore, on the 19th, confused by the excitement, to be mistaken. Indeed I remember an instance of this. General Egerton was ordered by you to drive back the mob who were pressing upon the Pennsylvania troops. He drove back the troops. I heard you give the order to Egerton, and I heard him report to you. approved of his act, and he pleaded misapprehension of your order. You dis I remain, sir, respectfully, yours, &c., It I had not retired to my bed when the scuttling of the ferry boat was proposed to me. was not proposed by men in whom I had no confidence. Highly respectable gentlemen arged it as the easiest and most lawful means of effecting the desired object. Yet I unhesitatingly refused my consent to the step. But the people of Maryland are asked to believe that, after this, in the still watches of the night, when requested by Enoch L. Lowe and George P. Kane to consent to the destruction of the bridges, I gave an "unequivocal, and decided, and distinct reply in the affirmative." I leave my vindication from such an absurd charge to the good sense of the people, in the full confidence that justice will be done me. It will readily occur to the reader that the time when the bridges were destroyed is a material point of this subject. The Mayor and his witnesses concur in their statement of the hour when they went to my bed-chamber to solicit my consent to the destruction of the bridges. They say it was 12 o'clock at night. TOWSONTOWN, May 29, 1861. His Excellency, Governor Hicks MY DEAR SIR: Yours of this date was handed me by our mutual friend, Mr. Bryson, and I at once started to Cockeysville in company with Mr. Bryson and our friend Edward Rider, Jr., and after getting such facts connected with the burning of the bridges as we could obtain, I hasten to answer your inquiries. On the night of the 19th ultimo I left Baltimore at precisely ten minutes past ten o'clock, and in about ten minutes more reached a point about one hundred yards nearer the city than the cemetery entrance, at which place I saw an omnibus with four horses, heads turned northward, or up the road; and about one hundred yards nearer the city I had passed previously two groups of men, about fifteen each; and when we passed the omnibus I remarked to a friend who was with me, "there is some devilment connected with that omnibus." Well, after I was home in bed, at about a quarter past eleven o'clock, the same omnibus, full of men, passed here, and a lady informed me that she saw it pass her house at precisely twelve o'clock, nine miles and a half from the city. The watchman at the bridge, whom I arrived at the bridge, and penned him in his saw to-day, states positively that when they o'olock; and that after cutting the telegraph shanty, it was about ten minutes past one wires, which took but a few minutes, they fired the bridges at about twenty or twenty-five minutes after one o'clock. As to who the party were, I cannot say ; but a gentleman at Cockeysville said that a man named Philip Fendall (I think of the firm of Duvall, Keighler & Co.) was one of the party, but I am not prepared to say so positively. He is a cousin to the wife of John Merryman, now under arrest. will do with great pleasure. Your obedient servant, JOHN H. LONGNecker. I have not the slightest doubt that the destruction of the bridges referred to was an important part of the secession programme. The necessity of such a step, in furtherance of the All men who will go with me will report evident designs of the secession leaders, must themselves as soon as possible, providing thembe apparent to all. It little becomes me, how-selves with such arms and accoutrements as ever, except for my own vindication, and inci- they can; double-barrelled shot guns and buckdentally, to enter upon an exposition of that shot are efficient. They will assemble, after plot. Time will fully unveil the plans of the reporting themselves, at 10 o'clock, so as to traitors. Already has sufficient been disclosed go down in the 11 train. to satisfy any unprejudiced mind that all the BRADLEY T. JOHNSON. details were matured which were designed to precipitate Maryland into rebellion against the General Government, and thus render our State the theatre of war. The following letter will show that the burning of the bridges was a foregone conclusion before my consent was asked FREDERICK CITY, MD. His Excellency, Thomas II. Hicks, Governor of DEAR SIR: We have received yours of the 23d instant, and, in reply, state that during the night of the 19th of April, ultimo, about one o'clock, Bradley T. Johnson sought and had an interview with us relative to a telegraphic despatch which he had received within an hour before from George P. Kane, Marshal of Police of Baltimore City, and which has since appeared in the public prints. In the course of that interview, Mr. Johnson, in unfolding the plans of those with whom he was cooperating, stated that they were determined to resist the passage of Federal troops through Maryland; and, as one of the means to accomplish that end, that the bridges on the railroads leading into Baltimore would be burned or destroyed. Some of us are clear in our recollection that he said the bridges would be destroyed that night. Others are not so clear in our recollection on that point. Very respectfully, your obedient servants, The annexed copy of a handbill_circulated throughout Western Maryland by Bradley T. Johnson, is evidence that Marshal Kane and his allies had made all the necessary provisions in anticipation of the pre-arranged attack upon the Massachusetts troops: Frederick: LATEST NEWS! Marylanders, Arouse! FREDERICK, Saturday, 7 o'clock A. M., 1861. Add to this the undeniable fact that many of the volunteer companies in Maryland were eagerly looking for an outbreak, and the subsequent attempt of the Legislature to pass the "Public Safety bill" in secret session, and I think no one can fail to see that the conspiracy, of which an attempt has been made to make me a participant, was fully and deliberately planned, and might have accomplished its diabolical designs had not the people frustrated it by an unmistakable expression of their determination to crush it at the point of the bayonet. Deeply regretting the necessity which has impelled me to vindicate myself from the charge brought against me, and with the assurance that I have done so only out of regard to the honor and dignity of my official position, I leave the matter to the judgment of a people whom I have endeavored faithfully to serve, and whose interests and safety I have constantly had in view. Doc. 57. Tпos. II. HICKS. REBEL OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF THE BATTLE AT NEW CREEK, VIRGINIA. CAMP DAVIS, ROMNEY, Va., June 19, 1861. COLONEL :-I have the honor to report that on yesterday I directed Colonel J. C. Vaughan, of the Third Tennessee regiment, to take two companies from his own and two from the Thirteenth Virginia regiment, and at eight o'clock P. M. to proceed to New Creek depot, eighteen miles west of Cumberland, on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, disperse the forces there collected, bring away the two pieces of artillery, and burn the railroad bridge. These directions, I am happy to assure you, were carried out to the letter, and the march of thirty-eight miles accomplished between eight P. M. and twelve the At 12 o'clock last night, I received the follow-next day. Some 250 of the federal troops, after ing despatch from Marshal Kane, of Baltimore, a slight stand, retired in disorder, with a loss of a few men. by telegraph to the Junction, and express to and Colonel Vaughan retired, bringing with him The bridge was then burned, two pieces of artillery and a stand of colors. To Colonel Vaughan, his officers and men, I am much indebted for the handsome manner in which my orders were carried out. Enclosed you will find the report of Colonel Vaughan. A. P. HILL your "Thank for you offer. Bring your men by the first train, and we will arrange with the railroad afterward. Streets red with Maryland blood! Send expresses over the mountains and valleys of Maryland and Virginia for their riflemen to come without delay. Fresh hordes will be down upon us to-morrow (the 20th.) We will fight them, and whip them, or die. "GEO. P. KAne." Colonel Third Regiment, commanding Brigade. Col. E. K. Smith, A.-A. General. HEAD-QUARTERS, THIRD TENNESSEE REGIMENT,ernment of their own, were in arms to maintain HILL'S BRIGADE, June 19, 1861. A. P. Hill, Colonel, Commanding Brigade, the rebellion. The laws of the United States were forcibly resisted; their officers, either voluntarily or through violence, were abandoning I have the honor to report that on yesterday, their duty and resigning their commissions, and at eight o'clock P. M., in pursuance of your or- a determination announced by the rebels to der, I took two companies of the Thirteenth continue the rebellion until its success was Virginia Volunteers, C. S. A., commanded by achieved, and the usurped Government recogCaptains Crittenden and White, and also two nized by that of the United States. In this treacompanies of the Third Tennessee regiment Vol-sonable effort it was believed that there were unteers, C. S. A., commanded by Captains Lil- misguided citizens in Maryland and elsewhere, liards and Mathas, and advanced eighteen miles whose States were yet loyal, who participated west to the line of the enemy, upon the Balti- in the treason, aided it secretly, and designed to more and Ohio Railroad, and found them post- involve their States in the rebellion. In this state ed in some strength, with two pieces of artil- of things the President, under his sworn duty lery, on the north bank of the Potomac, at the to "take care that the laws be faithfully executtwenty-first railroad bridge on said road. The ed," determined on resorting to the means afenemy had no pickets posted. At five o'clock forded by the second section of the act of 28th A. M., after reconnoitring, I gave the order to February, 1795, and by the act of the 3d of charge the enemy, which command, I beg leave March, 1807. He believed that the laws of to say, was gallantly executed, and in good or- the United States were being "opposed," their der, but with great enthusiasm. As we ap- execution obstructed, "by combinations too peared in sight, at a distance of four hundred powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course yards, the enemy broke and fled in all direc- of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vesttions, firing as they ran only a few random shots, ed in the marshals," and he therefore decided, one of which, however, I regret to say, entered as he was bound to do, "to call forth" such of the arm of private Smith, of Captain Lilliard's the militia as he deemed necessary to suppress company, which was in advance, wounding him the combination, and to employ to the same end slightly. The enemy did not wait to fire their the land and naval forces of the United States. artillery, which we captured, consisting of two Of his duty to see to the execution of the laws loaded guns, both of which, however, were he could have had no doubt, as that is in words spiked by the enemy before they fled. From imposed by the Constitution itself. Nor could the best information their number was between he have had any doubt of his authority and obtwo and three hundred. I do not know the ligation to resort for that purpose to the powers loss of the enemy, but several of them were conferred on him by the laws referred to. The seen to fall. We did not take any prisoners, meaning of these laws is free from all question, owing to the start the enemy got, and of our and the constitutionality of the first was long having left in the rear all the horses belonging since sanctioned by a unanimous decision of the to my cominand. I then ordered the twenty- Supreme Court in the case of Martin and Mott, first railroad bridge to be burnt, which was 12 Wheat. 19, whilst the validity of the last done, and in a few minutes only the piers re- was never drawn into doubt. In that case it mained. In further pursuance of your order, I was also decided that the President was the then retired, bringing with me the two guns. sole judge of the facts which would authorize The enemy's flag, which I forgot to mention, his use of the means provided by these laws, was captured, and other articles of little value. and that his decision was conclusive not only I cannot close without bringing to your notice upon the citizens, but upon every branch of the the gallant conduct of both officers and men, Government, whether Federal or State. In the who were each at their posts, and burning to language of the Court, "the authority to decide engage the enemy; and, when the order to whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclucharge was given, rushed forward with enthu- sively to the President, and that his decision is siasm, wading the river to their waists. I ar- conclusive upon all other persons." rived here this evening, the spirits of my men in nowise flagged. JOHN C. VAUGHAN, Colonel Commanding, Third Tennessee Volun- Doc. 58. POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO SUS- BY REVERDY JOHNSON. SEVERAL States of the Union having renounced their allegiance and that of their citizens to the Government of the United States, and asserted their right to do so, and organized a Gov The obligation on the President being to suppress the revolt and to "cause the laws to be duly executed," the military authority vested in him for that purpose is to be exercised until the end is attained. The sole limitation is one of time, and that regards only the militia whom he can use but from the period of their call into service till the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the next session of Congress. It thus appears that the militia and army and navy of the United States, now being used by the President to suppress the rebellion, are in the field by the authority of Congress, in whom the war power is vested, and to whom is also delegated the authority, and consequent ly in such cases the duty, "to provide for call- | corpus, nor authorize any military officer to ing forth the militia to execute the laws of the do so." Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The entire force has therefore now been "called into the actual service of the United States," and, by the very words of the Constitution, is under the direction of the President as commander-in-chief. He is to use them and to exercise, and to authorize others to exercise, all power in their use necessary to attain the end in view, the suppres-tified by the nature of the subject and the elesion of the rebellion. The power given him is strictly a military one. It is given because, in such a case as Congress by their legislation assume, a state of quasi war exists between the Government and the rebels. Not only the safety but the very existence of the Government depends on the result. The rebellion must be suppressed, or the integrity of the Government suspended, impaired, or destroyed. In such a case it is evident that "the public safety" requires the use of every legitimate means necessary to accomplish the end, the extinction of the rebellion, that are expressly or impliedly delegated to the President by Congress. Since the publication of this opinion the author of this paper has reviewed the subject, and availed himself of all the light furnished by the Chief-Justice. His original impression, however, that the President's conduct was perfectly constitutional, has but been confirmed. It is the purpose of this paper to state the reasons for this impression. This it is supposed is jusvated character of both the high functionaries more immediately concerned. The duty devolved on the President by the obligation to take care that the laws "be faithfully executed," and to use with that view the means furnished by the acts of Congress before referred to, is clearly and exclusively devolved upon him alone. Of its character and extent he is consequently to decide for himself, subject only to his responsibility to the people and to Congress. If, contrary to his own judgment, he abandons that judgment and suffers hmiself to be governed by the judgment of any coordinate authority of the Government, he would be false to his duty, Believing that instances might occur in Mary- and do any thing but fulfil "his constitutional land or elsewhere where the purpose might be obligation" to "take care that the laws be endangered if the civil proceeding by habeas faithfully executed." For this principle there corpus was suffered uninterruptedly to prevail, is the high authority of a former distinguished the President authorized the commanding officer President, Gen. Jackson. When, in July, 1832, for the time being, through the commander-in- it was urged upon him that a measure submitchief, to disregard it, if in his judgement the ted for his action as President was conclusively public safety demanded it, and to vouch him settled to be constitutional by an opinion, not of for his authority. This step was taken with no a single judge of the Supreme Court, but of the view to oppress the citizen, or illegally inter- entire Court, he held that that "ought not to fere with the ordinary course of civil justice, control the co-ordinate authorities of the Govbut solely from a conviction that it was in- ernment; " that "Congress, the Executive, and dispensable to the public safety, so clearly in the Court must each for itself be guided by its volved in the suppression of the rebellion. As own opinion of the Constitution. Each public no general dispensation of the writ was deem- officer who takes an oath to support the Coned necessary, but merely in certain cases of stitution swears that he will support it as he which the officer in command was, in the first understands it, and not as it is understood by instance, necessarily to judge, no notice was others. It is as much the duty of the House given that the writ would be suspended. Such of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the a notice would have been out of place where President to decide upon the constitutionality the design was to suspend it in particular cases of any bill or resolution which may be presentonly, whose special circumstances could not ined to them for passage or approval, as it is of advance be known, and of course could not be the Supreme Judges, when it may be brought stated in a notice. Under this authority, del- before them for judicial decision." egated to Gen. Cadwalader, a case occurredthat of John Merryman, of Maryland-in which that officer refused to obey such a writ issued by the Chief-Justice of the United States. That high officer has since filed his opinion, and has, it is said, caused a copy of the same, with all the proceedings, to be transmitted to the President, with whom, to use the words of the Chief-Justice, it will "remain," in fulfilment of his constitutional obligations, to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," to determine what means he will take to cause the civil process of the United States to be respected and enforced." In this opinion the Chief-Justice decides that "the President, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas The correctness of this doctrine, as applied to any constitutional power vested in either of the three branches of the Government for its separate action, has never been seriously questioned. To hold otherwise would be to attach superiority to one over the rest. Each being coordinate and clothed with its respective powers, each must judge for itself what those powers are, and act accordingly, not in subordination to, but independently of, the others. The power, then, which the President exercises in such a case is clearly conferred upon him, and on him alone, as President. It is made so by the Constitution and laws, and he is therefore the sole judge of its nature and limits. What, then, is the law? First. The writ of habeas corpus, except as hereinafter stated, is nowhere mentioned in the cause of the terms with which the article begins, Constitution or secured to the citizen by any "all legislative powers herein granted shall be general phraseology. Independent of the ex- vested in Congress," excluding of course all ception alluded to, the writ being given or re- powers not embraced by the grant. This being cognized by law might have by law been repeal- the scope of the power which is in any one of ed, and consequently have been repealed by the instances delegated by the 8th section of the Congress, in whom was vested, but for the ex- article, that cannot, by any latitude of construcception, ample power for that purpose. The tion even, be held to vest in Congress exclusivelegislative authority of that body is delegated, ly the right to suspend the writ of habeas cornot by the entire first article of the Constitution, pus. It is safe to say that there is not one. but by the eighth section of that article alone. Unlike the British Parliament, Congress has Under these powers it is clear that Congress no legislative authority other than that expressmight have refused to authorize a writ. With-ly delegated or reasonably to be implied from out such authority no court or judge of the what is delegated. If therefore, as will be eviUnited States could issue it; and because of dent from an examination of the 8th section, this, Congress passed the fourteenth section of there is nothing in it giving the power to sus the judiciary act of 1789. The officer or court pend the writ to Congress alone, that power, to issue the writ being to be designated by Con- if found anywhere, is not in the only section gress, Congress might now repeal that part of which confers legislative power. But it is said the act, and the writ would not exist as a rem- that the restriction on the authority to suspend edy under the Government of the Union. That the writ being in the 2d paragraph of the 9th such a measure would be wrong is admitted; section, and the entire article having "not the but it would not be such a wrong as would make slightest reference to the Executive Departit unconstitutional. Its correction would be ment," shows that the power to suspend the left with the people, as its occurrence is not to be writ was intended to be vested in Congress anticipated because of the responsibility of Con- alone. The error of this statement has already gress to the people. But occurring, and as long been pointed out by referring to the nature of as it might continue, the writ would be of the 10th section of the article, which is wholly no avail under the Government of the Union. devoted to the negation of power to the States, The exception referred to is in the second and not to the grant of power to Congress. paragraph of the ninth section of the article. But the error is also apparent, though not to This is the paragraph which it is supposed ren- the same extent, by the provisions in the 9th ders the conduct of the President in the partic-section itself. The 7th paragraph of the secular under consideration so clearly unconstitu- tion as clearly embraces the Executive as does tional, and "too plain and too well settled," any part of the succeeding one. By that paras unconstitutional, "to be open to dispute." agraph it is provided that, "no money shall be The words of the paragraph are: "The privilege drawn from the Treasury but by appropriations of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspend-made by law, and a regular statement and aced unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, count of the receipts and expenditures of all the public safety may require it." It is said public money shall be published from time to that this clause is in the article "devoted to the time." These clearly, so far from not having Legislative department," "and has not the "the slightest reference to the Executive deslightest reference to the Executive depart-partment," refer almost exclusively to that dement," and was designed, therefore, to give the particular power to suspend the writ exclusively to Congress. partment. The Treasury is and must be under the Executive control. A restraint, therefore, on the authority to draw money out of the In the first place, the statement is erroneous Treasury, directly and exclusively applies to the in point of fact. It is true that the general ob- department. So again, in the following, the ject of the article is to constitute the legislative 8th paragraph: "No person holding any oflice of department, and to confer on it all the legisla-profit or trust under them, [the United States, ] tive authority of the Government. But that is not its exclusive purpose. The 10th section of the article has nothing to do with the legislative power of the Union. It is devoted altogether to restraints on State power. These are male in certain cases absolute, and in others dependent on Congressional assent, but they contain no grant of legislative power to Congress. That power, and the whole that the body possesses, is given by the 8th section. That section commences with saying, "The Congress shall have power," and in eighteen paragraphs states the cases to which the power is to extend. The exclusion of all other powers than those there given is not only admitted, because the powers of Congress are all enumerated, but be shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign State." Officers of the United States are a part of the Executive department, and, but for this prohibition, could accept the things here prohibited. This clause, therefore, like the other, so far from not having "the slightest respect to the Executive department," refers directly and exclusively to that department. The assumption, then, of the Chief-Justice as to the nature of the article being unfounded, the weight of the argument, whatever that would otherwise be, founded on the assumption totally fails. But there are other reesons for supposing |