232 



CONGRESS, U. S. 



political unity and association? It has been 

 held heretofore I thought it was axiomatic, 

 and received everywhere that the terms of 

 the Constitution of the United States were the 

 measure of power on one side, and of obedience 

 on the other." 



Mr. Lane, of Indiana, replied by saying: 

 " "What is it that the President has done since 

 the last meeting of Congress? First, he has 

 declared a blockade of the Southern ports ; and 

 gentlemen tell us there is no constitutional au- 

 thority for that. It is the first duty of the 

 President to see that the laws are faithfully 

 executed. We have a tariff law imposing du- 

 ties upon foreign importations. That has been 

 disregarded by the seceding States ; they have 

 assumed to pass a tariff act different from ours. 

 That law of Congress cannot be enforced by 

 the ordinary course of procedure under your 

 collections of revenue at the proper ports es- 

 tablished by law. There is no higher power in 

 the Constitution of the United States delegated 

 to the President than the power to ' take care 

 that the laws be faithfully executed.' These 

 high and extraordinary powers, although not 

 perhaps technically granted in the Constitution, 

 result as an incident to the Avar power, which 

 is invoked, and constitutionally invoked, under 

 that provision of the Constitution which au- 

 thorizes the President to use force to suppress 

 insurrection and to put down rebellion. I 

 sanction, then, the proclamation establishing a 

 blockade. 



" The next objection is to the declaration of 

 martial law, by which the writ of habeas corpus 

 was suspended. I only regret that when the 

 writ was suspended, the corpus of Baltimore 

 treason was not ' suspended ' too. It is neces- 

 sary to the enforcement of the laws and to the 

 preservation of the Union that this writ of 

 habeas corpus should be suspended ; and the 

 Constitution of the United States says, in ex- 

 press terms, it may be suspended in case of re- 

 bellion and insurrection. Then the whole ques- 

 tion comes to this : Who is to judge ? Where 

 is the discretion lodged? Clearly with the 

 President of the United States ; and it can be 

 safely lodged nowhere else. 



" One word, before I forget it, on the subject 

 of this war, and the object of the war. There 

 is no war levied against any State, or against 

 any State institutions. The President has called 

 out troops to suppress insurrection, and put 

 down rebellion. These are the objects for 

 which your troops have been called into the 

 field. The abolition of slavery is no object 

 contemplated for which this war is to be prose- 

 cuted. But let me tell gentlemen, that although 

 the abolition of slavery is not an object of the 

 war, they may, in their madness and folly and 

 treason, make the abolition of slavery one of 

 the results of this war. That is what I under- 

 stand to be precisely the position of the Admin- 

 istration upon the subject of this war." 



On a subsequent day Mr. Latham, of Cali- 

 fornia, said that he held the line of demarkation 



in indorsing the conduct of the Executive to 

 be this : whatever imperious necessity required 

 him to do to support the Government, to en- 

 force the laws, and secure obedience to the con- 

 stituted authorities, it was right and proper he 

 should do, even though in the doing he may 

 have committed a technical infraction of the 

 authority delegated to him. Wherever there 

 was not that imperious necessity, he did not 

 justify him. So far as the violation of the writ 

 of habeas corpus in the State of Maryland was 

 concerned, he refused to give him his sanction 

 for that act. He refused it because that State had 

 shown, by the return of her delegates to the 

 other House, her allegiance to the Government 

 of the United States ; and though there might 

 be many citizens in her midst who sympathized 

 with the disloyal spirit of the Southern States ; 

 though there may have been disgraceful mobs 

 and riots in the city of Baltimore ; unless there 

 was clear evidence that the judiciary of that 

 State were tainted with that disloyalty, and were 

 unwilling to do their duty, under the Consti- 

 tution, in acting upon these writs of habeas cor- 

 pus, he would not justify any officer in the sus- 

 pension of that sacred privilege. No Senator 

 for one moment doubted the loyalty of the 

 Chief Justice of the United States, who issued 

 the writ ; or, if he did, he had never made it 

 known upon this floor. His character is pure, 

 spotless, and untainted ; his life has been one 

 of devotion to his country and the enforcement 

 of its laws ; and now, in his honored old age, 

 he could scarcely stigmatize a long list of years 

 of service by refusing to obey those laws and 

 those principles of justice which he has sworn 

 to carry out. Hence he regarded the act of the 

 President of the United States in suspending 

 the writ of habeas corpus, as this joint resolution 

 says, " between the city of Philadelphia and the 

 city of Washington," as an unnecessary viola- 

 tion of the powers possessed by him under the 

 Constitution ; and, as a conscientious guardian 

 of the liberties of the people, he refused him 

 his indorsement for that act. 



So, too, as to the increase of the regular 

 standing army of the country. The purposes 

 for which he was striving could have been as 

 easily accomplished by the volunteer force of 

 the country ; and therefore the exercise of 

 power in increasing the regular standing army 

 was not warranted by the exigencies. He de- 

 clined, therefore, his indorsement for this act 

 also. But, sir, as to the other acts of the Gov- 

 ernment ordering the blockade; calling out 

 the volunteers of the country ; suspension of 

 the writ of habeas corpus in Florida, it being in 

 open rebellion to your Government ; and all 

 the other acts enumerated in this joint reso- 

 lution he had his hearty approval ; and " I 

 now say, as the representative of a sovereign 

 State and a loyal people, that if he had not ex- 

 ercised those powers, I would have voted to 

 impeach him as unworthy the place he occu- 

 pies, and most derelict in his duties to the Gov- 

 ernment." 



