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 1^st 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]