18th day of September, 1850, entitled 'An Act to amend, and supplementary to 'An Act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,' or shall in any capacity serve such warrant or other process. Any justice of the peace, who offends against the provisions of this section, by directly or indirectly acting in such cases, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, or be imprisoned in jail not exceeding one year for each offense.' 999

There is the law as it stands on the statute book this day. Has Mr. Lincoln, like Jackson, ever advised its repeal, that the Northern States in prosecuting a gigantic war against the Southern States, might do it with clean hands! He has done nothing of the kind. On the contrary, this little, seditious, plodding, plundering State of Massachusetts has controlled the whole policy of this war. And in doing this, she has made the war a means of speculation. Her delegates in Congress have devised more draft laws and conscription laws than all the other States put together-and yet how does she stand on the record? The population of the State of Indiana, as evidenced by the late census reports, is 1,300,000, and the population of Massachusetts 1,200,000 in round numbers, and yet Indiana, under the various calls of the President, and by draft, has furnished the United States army 102,000 soldiers, and Massachusetts only about 70,000-the draft law, too, be it remembered, was strictly enforced in Indiana, and is not, to this day, completed in Massachusetts.

But the President is justified by his adherents, under the omnipotent plea of "military necessity." They do not pretend to put any limitations upon it, and all who do not agree that the proposition is correct, are summarily denounced as disloyal. If these gentlemen would consent to read and reflect a little, they would discover they are at war with the principles of the greatest, the wisest, and the most learned law writers who have treated of this subject.

In Johnson v. Duncan, 3 Martin, 531, Judge Derbigny says: “To have a correct idea of martial law in a free country, examples must not be sought in the arbitrary conduct of absolute governments. The monarch who unites in his person all the powers, may delegate to his generals an authority as unbounded as his own. But in a Republic, where the constitution has fixed the extent and limits of every branch of the government in time of war, as well as of peace, there can exist nothing vague, uncertain, or arbitrary,

in the exercise of any authority. Can it be asserted, that while British subjects are secured against oppression in the worst times, American citizens are left at the mercy of the will of an individual who may, in certain cases, the necessity of which is to be judged of by himself, assume a supreme, overbearing, unbounded power! The idea is not only repugnant to the principles of any free government, but subversive of the very foundations of our own.”

Sir Edward Coke says: "If a lieutenant, or other that hath commission of martial authority, in time of peace, hang, or otherwise execute, any man by color of martial law, this is murder; for this is against Magna Charta, chap. 29, and is done with such power and strength as the party can not defend himself; and here the law implieth malice." 3 Inst. 52, 53.

Sir William Blackstone says: "For martial law, which is built upon no settled principles, but is entirely arbitrary in its decisions, is, as Sir Matthew Hale observes, in truth and reality, no law; but is something indulged in rather than allowed as a law. The necessity of order and discipline, in an army, is the only thing which can give it countenance.”

Lord Mansfield says: "To lay down, in an English court of justice, such a monstrous proposition as that a Governor, acting by virtue of letters patent under the Great Seal, is accountable only to God and his own conscience; that he is absolutely despotic, and can spoil, plunder, and affect his majesty's subjects, both in their liberty and property, with impunity, is a doctrine that can not be maintained.”—Cowp. 175.

Chief Justice Taney says: "The movement upon Chihuahau was undoubtedly undertaken from high and patriotic motives. It was boldly planned and gallantly executed, and contributed to the successful issue of the war. But it is not for the court to say what protection or indemnity is due from the public to an officer who, in his zeal for the honor and interest of his country, and in the excitement of military operations, has trespassed upon private rights. That question belongs to the political department of the Government. Our duty is to determine under what circumstances private property may be taken from the owner, by a military officer, in time of war. And the question here is, whether the law permits it to be taken to insure the success of any enterprise against a public enemy which the commanding officer may deem it advisable to undertake. And we think it very clear that the law does not permit it.". 13 How. 135.

Read what General Washington says: "That every officer and soldier will constantly bear in mind that he comes to support the laws, and that it would be peculiarly unbecoming in him to be, in any way, the infractor of them; that the essential principles of free government confine the province of the military, when called forth on such occasions, to two objects; first, to combat and subdue all who may be found in arms in opposition to the national will and authority; secondly, to aid and support the civil magistrates in bringing offenders to justice. THE DISPENSATION OF THIS JUSTICE

BELONGS TO THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES; AND LET IT EVER BE OUR PRIDE AND OUR GLORY TO LEAVE THE SACRED DEPOSITE THERE INVIOLATE.

Irving's Life of Washington, vol. 5, chap. 25.

General Washington never sanctioned the doctrine that martial law could be declared over American citizens. In his Farewell Address he took precisely the opposite ground of this theory. Here is what he said on that question: "It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking, in a free country, should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres; avoiding, in the exercise of the powers of one department, to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against the invasions of the other, has been evinced by experiments, ancient and modern, some of them in our own country, and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which the Constitution designates. But let therE BE NO CHANGE BY USURPATION; FOR THOUGH THIS, IN ONE INSTANCE, MAY BE THE INSTRUMENT OF GOOD, IT IS THE CUSTOMARY WEAPON BY WHICH FREE GOVERNMENTS ARE DESTROYed. THE PRECEDENTS MUST, ALWAYS, GREATLY OVERBALANCE, IN PERMAMENT EVIL, ANY PARTIAL OR TRANSIENT BENEFIT WHICH THE USE CAN, AT ANY TIME, YIELD.”

In regard to General Jackson's connection with the New Orleans.

affair, in which the friends of this Administration find so much to justify President Lincoln for the absurd and despotic course he has seen fit to pursue, the Committee would refer the reader to a very able paper prepared on this subject by one of the ripest lawyers and most proficient statesmen of Ohio. We give the following extract:

"There is no question that on the 16th of December, 1814, General Jackson declared the city of New Orleans and its environs. to be under 'strict' martial law; but, inasmuch as he was then acting as a military commander, in charge of the seventh military district, the precedent (granting all that has been claimed for it) can be of no avail unless sanctioned by the Government of the United States as a lawful exercise of power. The truth is, however, that the Government did not sanction it, and expressly disapproved it. (Letter of the Secretary of War to General Jackson, April 12, 1815.) The reason why no further notice was taken of the affair at the time is, that Jackson submitted, like a patriot and real soldier as he was, the moment his error was pointed out.

"He never claimed authority to suspend the privilege of habeas corpus, except in the city of New Orleans and its immediate neighborhood, and while invasion was actual or imminent. He never dreamed, for an instant, of such enormous and inexcusable usurpations as we now see, almost every where, and on all occasions, practiced by military commanders. The acts of Congress then in force gave him a right to call upon the State of Louisiana for the services of every able-bodied citizen; and he had, with the assent of the State authorities, placed all who were capable of bearing arms under orders to be in readiness, as soldiers, upon brief and sudden notice. It was upon the idea that he thus commanded the entire population, as persons liable to military duty at once, and therefore subject to military law, and not upon the notion (at present so much in vogue) that a General can, by proclamation or otherwise, constitute himself an irresponsible dictator over the lives and liberties of his fellow-citizens, that Jackson assumed to act."

General Jackson himself, in his address of March 3, 1837, has given to the American people some serious admonitions upon the subject now under discussion. He says:-"It is well known that there have always been among us those who wish to enlarge the powers of the General Government; and experience would seem to indicate that there is a tendency on the part of this Government to

overstep the boundaries marked out for it by the Constitution. Its legitimate authority is abundantly sufficient for all the purposes for which it was created; and its powers being expressly enumerated, there can be no justification for claiming any thing beyond them. Every attempt to exercise power beyond these limits should be promptly and firmly opposed. For one evil example will lead to other measures still more mischievous; and if the principle of constructive powers, or supposed advantages, or temporary circumstances, shall ever be permitted to justify the assumption of a power not given by the Constitution, the General Government will, before long, absorb all the powers of legislation, and you will have, in effect, but one consolidated Government. From the extent of our country, its diversified interests, different pursuits and different habits, it is too obvious for argument that a single consolidated government would be wholly inadequate to watch over and protect its. interests; and every friend of our free institutions should be always prepared to maintain unimpaired and in full vigor, the rights and sovereignty of the States, and to confine the action of the General Government strictly to the sphere of its appropriate duties."

Thomas Jefferson has also left on record certain admonitions with reference to this subject that the true friends of Democratical principles will never cease to respect. In a letter he wrote at Paris to Mr. Donald, February 7, 1788, he expresses the wish that certain States would insist upon a declaration of rights in the final ratifiication of the Constitution of the United States.

"By a declaration of rights," said this great philosopher, "I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspension of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. THESE ARE FETTERS AGAINST DOING EVIL WHICH NO HONEST GOVERNMENT SHOULD DECLINE."

On the 4th day of March, 1801, Mr. Jefferson insisted upon the following fundamental principles of government under our Constitution, and, as he was one of its original framers, he certainly better knew what it means than Mr. Lincoln does.

"The Supremacy of the Civil over the Military Authority.” "The Arraignment of all abuses at the bar of Public Reason." "Freedom of the Press."

"FREEDOM OF PERSON, UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS."

Trial by Juries Impartially Selected."