Greensborough Patriot
February 5, 1863
Page 4
From the Salisbury Watchman
Suspension
of the Habeas Corpus Act in Salisbury
and for Ten Miles Around
In the good year of our Lord 1215—six hundred and
forty-eight years ago, the sturdy barons of England, sword in hand, at
Runnymede, wrested from King John the Great charter of liberty, which among
other things, declared “that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned but by the
law of the land.” For ages struggling
millions had groaned beneath the heel of despotism; but light began to break,
the tyrant’s tread was stayed when the barons asserted their inalienable
rights, and embodied them in a charter, which is venerated by the lovers of
personal and civil liberty, as the very corner stone upon which the magnificent
temple of freedom is erected. For four
hundred and thirteen years this charter was the
watchword of liberty, but “power is always stealing from the many to the few,”
and it became necessary to re-enact and fortify the rights of the English
citizen. In 1628 the parliament demanded
and received from Charles I that celebrated law known as the Petition of
Rights, in which the King bound himself “never again to raise money without the
consent of the Houses, never again to imprison any person, except in due course
of law, and never again to subject his people to the jurisdiction of courts
martial”—by 16 Car. 1. C. 10 “if any person be restrained of his liberty by
order or decree of any illegal court, or
by command of the King’s majesty in person, or by warrant of the council
board, he shall upon demand of his
counsel have a writ of habeas corpus, to bring his body before the court of
King’s bench or common pleas who shall determine whether the cause of his
commitment be just, and therefore do as to justice shall appertain.” But Charles violated this right of habeas
corpus, and the inexorable Englishmen brought his head to the block.
The common law of England, (for the magna charter is embodied in that law)
does not permit the sovereign to suspend the habeas corpus act. This is
reserved to the representatives of the people alone, parliament assembled. “The parliament only can authorize the crown,
by suspending the habeas corpus Act, for
a short and limited time, to imprison suspected persons without giving any
reason for so doing; as the Senate of Rome was wont to have recourse to a dictator, or magistrate of absolute
authority, when they judged the republic in any imminent danger. In like
manner this experiment ought to be
tried in cases of extreme emergency.”
With such caution spoke Chief Justice Blackstone. He regarded it as an “experiment” and ____
its exercise only in cases of “imminent danger” and then only “for a short and limited
time.”
The Confederate Constitution says “the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion
or invasion the public safety may require it.”
President Davis has suspended this writ in Salisbury and for ten miles around the town
because Congress has given him the power to do so at his discretion. We do not hesitate to say that the President
has abused a power which has been recklessly conferred,
and wantonly exercised dictatorial, tyrannical and offensive authority over a
loyal and inoffensive people. We fear that evil counselors have got the
ear of the President. Men who commend themselves to those in power by acting as panderers
and pimps and who keep out of battle by impugning the loyalty of men of more
patriotism than themselves. Gold
lace men , whose occupation—like that of Othello’s—would be gone if there were
no political prisoners to guard.
I say the power to suspend the Act was recklessly
conferred; in proof of this, let us turn to the debates in the Senate of the
Confederate Congress. On the 1st
of October, 1862, in the debate on Martial Law, Provost Marshalls, etc., “Mr.
Semmes of Louisiana, read from the Articles of war to show that they were
framed exclusively for the government
of persons in the Army of the Confederate States, either as officers or
privates except in the cases of persons not residents of the Confederate
States, who may be found lurking about our fortifications. And he took the ground that no citizen of the
Confederate States, not a member of the land forces, or of the militia in
actual service, was subject either to martial or military law; and cannot be
tried before a military tribunal. If a
citizen has committed any offence, he must be tried before a civil
tribunal. He desired to say publicly,
that the law authorizing the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus was upon a supposed sudden emergency, passed in haste, without ever having
been referred to the Justice Committee.”
Thus it is that an individual right of freemen is trifled with and
trampled upon by a Confederate Congress.
But we assert also that the President has abused his
power. There might be some excuse for
the exercise of such power in the city of Richmond,
when in a state of siege. There might
have been some excuse for it when Gen. Jackson defended New Orleans against the English although our
fathers caused even him to bow to the majesty of the law, when he was fined for
his contempt to judicial authority. But,
pray what excuse can be given for insulting the loyalty of the people of Rowan,
as Mr. Davis has done? We assert that
the “rebellion or invasion” spoken of in the constitution does not exist in
Rowan—no, not in North Carolina. But there is a military prison in Salisbury—yes, and there was a Bastille in France, and it
is said that 51,000 letres de cachet were issued during what is
termed the wild reign of Cardinal Fleury. Shall we witness these sealed letters, the
arbitrary orders, privately issued by a monarch, for the imprisonment of any
person, without concern? It was to
counteract such tyranny that the Constitution given us by our fathers declares
that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, be informed of
the duty and cause of the accusation—be confronted with the witnesses against
him—compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and have the
assistance of a counsel for his defense.”
Can a citizen of the State be guilty or innocent, obtain a speedy trial
when denied a trial at all? Can he
obtain the assistance of counsel when debarred any communication with any
person except the keepers of Bastille?
It does not seem the parochial locality of Salisbury is, of all others,
the place where the inmates of a prison could be taken out and examined, tried,
witnessed for and against, and if found guilty remanded to prison but if found innocent set at large;
and all done, not only without detriment to the public good, but positively
with advantage to public liberty and the cause of the Confederate
independence. I begin to think with Mr. Baldwin,
of Virginia,
who, at the last session of Congress remarked that “he thought the President
was fond of exercising power, when he had a good opportunity, and if Congress
did not clip his wings in time, he might go to extremes.”
The conservators of liberty in Salisbury, if such there be and in Rowan
county and State at large, must speak out before
it is too late. The mind of the
President must be disabused. He should
be informed of the petty political jealousies of his advisors.—He should be
informed that the judges of North
Carolina are more likely to err with him than against
him; and that it is a wanton insult to our people to be treated thus. Men must be sent to Congress who will refuse
to give the President power, and who have themselves an innate love of liberty
and republican institutions. In short,
eternal vigilance must be exercised, and frequent recurrence must be made to
the fundamental principles of civil liberty—to the maxim that the military must
be kept in subordination to the civil power; and to the political maxim which
only obtained practical force after centuries of toil and bloodshed—“that all
political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” Let us always have the independence and
discrimination to distinguish between the government and the administration,
and let us take care that we do not lose our liberties, little by little under
the pleas of necessity—the tyrant’s plea in all ages amid the divisions evident
to a clash of arms and the divisions of empire.
PALERMO
[Transcribed
by Sharon Strout]
