MINORITY REPORT.

The Minority of the Committee on Arbitrary Arrests beg leave to make the following report, accompanied with the evidence and Majority Report of said Committee, together with the resolutions of this House on that subject, passed by a strict party vote.

We respectfully dissent from the Majority Report of said Committee, nor can we agree with them in admitting, for one moment, that the arrests complained of in this State were arbitrary, unjust, and illegal, or that they were subversive of the Constitution of the United States or of this State, or dangerous to the liberties of the people; but, upon the contrary, they were strictly made for the protection of the Government-to sustain the rights and privileges of the true and loyal citizens of the nation, and to aid those in authority in crushing out the rebellion and restoring the Union.

As a matter of history, it is well known to the American people that President Lincoln, in the strict line of his constitutional duty, some time last fall published an order in relation to those disloyal practices which were calculated to weaken the arm of the Government and give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Every reading and thinking man well knows the condition of the country at the time that order was published. Our enemies (the rebels) outnumbered us in the field; our army for the restoration of the Union had been greatly thinned by disease and death. We had been virtually repulsed in the seven days' fight before Richmond; we had met with disaster in Kentucky and at other points, and General Buell was after General Bragg's rebel army. The free States were threatened by the invading rebel foe-every thing looked dark and gloomy; for a time the people were in awful suspense as to the fate of the nation and the safety of the heroic band of Union soldiers, who were battling against disease and the armed rebels of the country.

At this time a quick and bold move had to be made by the Commander-in-Chief of the nation, or all would be lost, and that soon -the soldiers in the field would perish with the overthrow of the Government. President Lincoln, with an honest purpose to fulfill his duty, and his whole constitutional duty to the country under his solemn oath of office, as President of the United States, came at once to the rescue by calling out three hundred thousand additional troops; and hearing the low mutterings of treason and of treasonable acts and conduct by those who were disloyal to their Government in many of the loyal States North, he sent forth his order, alluded to, to hush for ever, if possible, that treason which was fast sapping the very vitals and life's blood of the nation.

The President did nothing but his duty under the Constitution. Had he acted differently, he would have been recreant to his high trusts; and had he failed to adopt proper measures for the saving of the soldiers then in the field, and had they perished by his neglect and the Union lost, mankind would have pronounced him even worse than a Buchanan-a fit associate of the traitors Arnold, Burr and Jeff. Davis. He did his duty, and loyal men had nothing to fear, as his orders making the arrests and the suspending of the writ of habeas corpus were not intended for them. The loyal are just as safe as they ever were in times of the most profound peace, having a clear conscience, sleep soundly, being at no time in danger unless at the hands of the enemies of the country. Had all in the free States been of this class, and had loyalty been universal over the land, no such orders would have been necessary. But these orders and proclamations of the President are terrible things to traitors, and those who speak and sympathize with them.

The God of Heaven and the Constitution of the United States never gave any citizen the right to say, do, and speak whatever he pleased, without reference to whether it was right or wrong. That Constitution protects the right and punishes the wrong. A man may say all he pleases of his neighbor or his Government, provided he pleases to. This is the light in which the immortal Jackson and the great Democratic party of the country viewed this subject in years past.

General Jackson, being a Major General, subordinate to the President of the United States, after he fought his great battle at New Orleans, made some arbitrary arrests of Louisiana legislators, and among the rest a certain Judge Hall, of the United States Court, some for publications used toward himself as commander,

and against Judge IIall for issuing a writ of habeas corpus for the release of a certain legislator, whom General Jackson had ordered to be arrested under military law; whereupon General Jackson ordered immediately the arrest of Judge Hall for his judicial act, in issuing the writ of habeas corpus, and he was accordingly arrested. Soon peace was declared with Great Britain, and Judge Hall was released by order of General Jackson, and afterward the Judge had the General brought before his Court to answer for his conduct in the matter; was fined by the court one thousand dollars, and in after years every Democrat in Congress voted to refund to General Jackson the said fine, which was done.

Stephen A. Douglas, the great champion of Democracy in his day, advocated the passage of the law refunding to General Jackson, and alleging that Judge Hall did wrong in fining General Jackson at all; and that the arrest of the Judge by General Jackson was right, and the Democratic votes in Congress indorsed the sentiments of Stephen A. Douglas.

Thus was set the great example of suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and of making arbitrary arrests, and proclaiming martial law in time of war.

And this example was set by the great apostle of Democracy of his day, and was so approved by his party. Posterity will bless and honor the acts of that great patriot, soldier, and statesman. So will posterity and mankind throughout the civilized world, who love free government and our noble union of States, honor and bless the name of "honest OLD ABE" LINCOLN for treading in the footsteps of the hero of New Orleans.

If any cause of complaint may exist, we venture to say that the future historian of America, and the readers of the acts of this great rebellion in after times, will wonder with shame and astonishment why it was that this Administration did not, with a more swift vengeance, punish the outlaw and traitor in whatever part of the United States he was found.

From the evidence before the country, we of this time should have no complaint to enter against the President and those executing the laws under him, unless for the mercy exercised by him and his supporters against the rebels and traitors of the land.

As to the constitutional power of the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and of making arrests of disloyal persons in time of war, invasion, or rebellion, there can be no doubt. His war power under that instrument makes him the Commander-in

Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and that same Constitution requires that he shall see that the laws of the land are faithfully executed, and that in cases of invasion and insurrection the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended.

Some say that Congress ought to pass a law on that subject: First, to give the President power to do these things before he can act, and, as a reason, they say the President might act tyrannically if this was not the case. This amounts to no argument whatever, for the reason that the President, if corrupt, could be as tyrannical one way as well as the other.

On that subject the people must, as they always have trusted, continue to trust to the honesty of the President. If in such cases the President abuses his constitutional trusts there are but two ways to remedy the evil; one by impeachment and the other at the ballot-box.

Again, in the interim of Congress, the members all being at home, from three to five thousand miles apart, some in the Eastern States, some in the Pacific States, and scattered all over the land. Suddenly the country is invaded, or an insurrection or rebellion breaks out, so great and so cunningly arranged that the insurgents or rebels are able to capture a majority of the members of Congress, what is the President to do? Shall he let the Government go overboard by default? No, sir! He must execute the laws under the Constitution, and in doing so he has the right and power to arrest, imprison, chain or hang every traitor in the land. And this awful penalty should be meted out to all those who give aid and comfort to the same. And to save the Constitution unimpaired, he might, if white agents gave out, employ black agents to kill white traitors.

Right here we may notice another class of constitutional objectors, who declare that in all cases, whether in peace or in war, the military power of the nation must be in subjection to the civil authority.

In time of war the civil authority must only be in subjection to the military whenever public safety demands it.

If this was not so, under the Constitution, then there could never be a battle fought against rebels, for the Constitution expressly declares, that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

That is, no man shall lose his life, under the Constitution, until a court of competent jurisdiction has heard his or her cause, and

found the accused guilty of a crime against the United States worthy of death, and thereupon the court pronounces sentence of death, and the person is executed accordingly. And this same process must be gone through with, in regard to liberty and property: that is, life, liberty, and property, must be taken away by judicial judgment and decree.

Now this is all right, and applies to times of peace; but has nothing at all to do with the rights of war under the Constitution. Apply this kind of interpretation to about thirty thousand armed rebels, with guns in their hands, and you will find that judgments of courts are not for their case. The Union army comes in sight

of them, and is about to begin to shoot, when some guardian of human liberty, with his hat full of writs of habeas corpuses, comes up, and this walking commentary of the, Constitution cries, with a loud voice, “stop!"

"Here's work of another kind. In our peculiar form of government, the military must always be in subjection to the civil authority; therefore, call a jury to try these thirty thousand fellows, before you take their life; for that is the only way to get a man's life from him, under our Millennium Constitution."

Thus speak all that class of men who have not been blessed with a sight of that part of the Constitution known as the military part. But some wag, at this point, while the jury is being made up, urges another objection, viz: that a man can not be tried, according to the Constitution, for a crime, where his life is at stake, unless he is personally present, and the difficulty that presents itself to the court and jury is, that these thirty thousand fellows won't consent to be arrested, for fear the writ of habeas corpus will not release them.

Now what is to be done in a case like the one just put? Why, do just what common sense and the Constitution says do, exercise the military power; hurl the army of the country down upon the rebels, and kill every one of them, if they do not surrender.

All such as would, in times of war, make the civil authority supreme and above the military power, were begotten and brought forth by either ignorance or treason.

And all that class of persons who are constantly talking of the habeas corpus, and are very much alarmed for fear its great liberty features will be violated-they need more patriotism-for they are not such friends to human liberty as to trust that great boon to their keeping.