FREEDOM OF THE PEESS. 



case (2 Hen. Bl. Rep., p. 98). Unless, therefore, the 

 plea of military power overriding the fundamental 

 law from the necessities of a present and overwhelm- 

 .irlike force can be sustained, then the acts of 

 the President were unconstitutional. Because he 

 arrested "without due process," and "his seizures 

 unreasonable." But the constitutional ques- 

 tion has been expressly determined in favor of the 

 prosecution by the Supreme Court of Indiana. The 

 court held the section in question unconstitutional. 

 .11 r<?. Wilcox, 21 Indiana; 370.) Mr. Hall read 

 :se at length, especially emphasizing this pas- 

 If those sacred rights, among which are the 

 liberty of speech, of the press, and freedom of elec- 

 tions which are the three great bulwarks of free 

 institutions are to be stricken down and perma- 

 nently destroyed by armed force ; or if that force is 

 not to be used to restore the just authority of our 

 once glorious Government, but merely to establish, 

 by wading through seas of blood, a single consoli- 

 dated Government, having for its corner-stone certain 

 chimerical ideas of philanthropy,frateruity, and equal- 

 ity, social and political, of all races of men without 

 respect to color, then it might not be so readily con- 

 ceded that imperative necessity would require that 

 the force should be kept up solely for such pur- 

 pose." 



Attorney-General Cochrane, after a brief allusion 

 to the importance of the case, proceeded in an elab- 

 orate argument to give his views upon the questions 

 at stake. The order of the President having been 

 interposed as a justification for the act of his agent, 

 the question was whether the agent was justifiable 

 for that act by virtue of the order of the President. 

 Gen. Cochrane then quoted apposite passages from 

 the Constitution of the United States, defining the 

 duties of the President and the restrictions put upon 

 him as to abridging the liberties of the press and the 

 people by the amendments to that instrument. The 

 _-es" which he quoted he contended had pro- 

 hibited in language as strong as could be used the 

 act which abridged the freedom of the press or which 

 inhibited the liberty of the press without due process 

 of law. He might "be answered that the letter of the 

 record was to that effect, but the spirit of the Consti- 

 tution was to the effect that the President was em- 

 powered by the law of Congress, and that such 

 authority was duly and properly exercised. He 

 (General Cochrane) refused the suggestion, and de- 

 nounced it as treasonable to the rights of the people 

 and ruinous to general liberty. The speaker then 

 srave a succinct history of the nature of martial law 

 from the earliest period of English history down to 

 our own time. He contended that as there was no 

 power within the Constitution, and as the history of 

 antecedent and contemporary time proved that it 

 was not intended there should be any power, either 

 in the Congress or in the President to declare martial 

 law, the act of Mr. Lincoln, under which Gen. Dix 

 justified himself, was unjustifiable, and had no foun- 

 dation in la\v or warrant in the Constitution. 



Gen. Cochrane passed to the consideration of the 

 question whether the President in any other consti- 

 tutional capacity than that of a civil o'fficer, was en- 

 dowed with the power, under any circumstances, of 

 proclaiming martial law. He quoted reliable author- 

 ities TO sustain his position that no martial law can 

 prevail without proclamation, and that, in the lan- 

 guage of the Duke of Wellington, martial law was no 

 law at all. 



In conclusion Gen. Cochrane contended that in 



order to justify the proclamation of martial law it 



nt sufficient that the country should be in a 



state of war, but that the particular district should be 



invaded and the courts suspended. 



"Wm. M. Evarts made the closing speech, contend- 

 ing that the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus 

 conferred upon the President ample power to do 

 whatever he thought was necessary for the preserva- 

 tion of the country in time of war." 



The decision of the Judge was delivered oil 

 Aug. 1st. After a careful examination of the 

 matter, he concluded to hold Gen. Dix and 

 those concerned "with him in executing the man- 

 dates of the President subject to the action of 

 the grand jury of the city and count y. He said : 



It is unnecessary* for me, in deciding this matter, 

 to rehearse the facts of this case. The defendants^ 

 through their counsel, place themselves under the 

 protection of section 4 of the Act of Congress of 

 March 3, 1863, entitled "An act relating to habeas 

 corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain 

 cases." If that provision is constitutional, it assimi- 

 lates the President of the United States, during the 

 existence of the present rebellion, to an absolute 

 monarch, and makes him incapable of doing any 

 wrong. This is a very novel and startling doctrine 

 to advance under a republican form of government. 



I have given the case a most careful consideration ; 

 on the one hand, seeking to avoid an undue inter- 

 ference with the agents of the Government in the 

 Eerformance of their duty, and, on the other, keeping 

 efore me my own obligation to uphold and enforce 

 the laws of this State. I do not deem it proper to 

 state in detail the view I entertain upon the legal 

 principles so ably discussed before me by the coun- 

 sel on both side's. Such an exposition "of the law- 

 would be more appropriate should the case come 

 before the court for trial. It strikes me, however, as 

 a fit occasion to enable the great questions of time in- 

 volved in it to be brought up in such a shape as to 

 admit of their being absolutely and finally settled. 



Xo further proceedings have taken place in 

 the case. 



The defendants placed themselves under the 

 protection of Section 4 of the Act of Congress 

 of March 3d, 1863, entitled " an Act relating to 

 habeas corjjus and regulating judicial proceed- 

 ings in certain cases." (S<.e ANNUAL CYCLO- 

 PEDIA, vol. 1863, p. 255.) 



The following are some further incidents 

 connected with the publication of newspapers 

 during 1864 : 



'!t>ition and Union, Fairfield, Iowa. Destroyed 

 February 8, 1864. 



Craicford Democrat, Meadville, Penn. Mobbed 

 February 5, 1864. Saved by editor's defence. 



Northumberland Democrat, Penn. Destroyed by 

 mob, February 7, I^'i4. 



llatt, Belleville, Missouri. Destroyed a sec- 

 ond time, May 18, : 



Democrat, Sunbury, Penn. Mobbed January 18, 

 1864. Office destroyed. Property stolen. 



Ev.ale, Lancaster/Ohio. Mobbed February 3, 1864. 

 Partially destroyed. 



Jlaltoniit'i Sentinel, Youngstown, 0. Mobbed Janu- 

 ary -_'S, Iv34. Attempt to assassinate the editor. 

 Orfice totally destroyed. 



'unibus,*0hio. Threatened February 15, 

 Saved by being armed. 



. Columbus, Ohio. Threatened February 

 15, 1804. Saved by being armed. 



Democrat, Laporte, Indiana. Destroyed February 

 15, 1864. 



Democrat, Wauscon, Ohio, destroyed Feb. 20, 1864. 

 , Lebanon, Penn., attacked March 15, 

 1864 ; defended successfully. 



'on Empire, Dayton, Ohio, completely do- 

 stroyed March 3, 

 Pickti Guard, Chester, 111. totally destroyed Au- 



. 1864. 



Herald, Franklin County, Indiana, demolished 

 March 20, 1864. 



Democrat, Greenville, Darke County, Ohio, demol- 

 ished March 5. 1864. 



