Puslapio vaizdai

doubt about that, that one of these organizations in their camps decreed the death of Senator Shoffner. They decided that he must be executed, and, sir, we shall show that a parcel of this band of assassins fifteen or twenty in number started to execute this vile deed of darkness; and how was it prevented, as we expect to show? We expect to show that one man who was a member of this very organization, happened to be a personal friend of Shoffner, he was informed of the decree against his life, and being his friend, we expect to show he prevailed upon him to leave the county of Alamance and go to Greensboro' on the day or rather the night before he was to be exeented, and we expect to show the interference of another man belonging to this same organization; that he heard it, and he started on the direction that they are to come and he meets the men armed and moving forward to execute Shoffner; they are informed that he was not at home, that he was not in the county, and they retire.

Now, Mr. Chief Justice and senators, is it not idle, is it not farcical that gentlemen should get up here and say that because the courts were open, because they held courts there which took no notice whatever of these transactions, they indicted no man, they punished no man, they imprisoned no man, every man's life if he became at all obnoxious to this vile organization, his life was in peril. If he had been scourged, if he named it he was put to death or scourged again. I say then can any senator declare, can any senator vote that all this testimony tending to show the motive of the governor is to be excluded, because these vile deeds were done in secret in the dead hour of the night, and with persons disguised so that no man could tell them even in the day time. I trust senators all understand this question. It is offered merely as to motive.

Now, sir, if the respondent's motive is good, if the county of Alamance was in the condition, as we expect to show the court it was, and that the respondent expected to stop it by this process, then he must go acquitted.

But what do the gentlemen say here now in the last argu

ment? Why they say that he intended to try these men by court martial and execute them. Have we got to that point? Is that the question which we are arguing? No, sir, when this testimony is closed, when we have laid before this high court the testimony we allege, and when they show that he arrested A, B, C and D, who are men of good character, men who had no connection with this matter, then another question will arise. But we have not come to that yet. The counsel who last addressed you has argued this question as if the evidence were all in, and contends that there is no justification for the governor whatever. I shall contend for the principle that when a county or a particular neighborhood with circumscribed boundaries is declared to be in a state of insurrection, a writ of habeas corpus does not run there. The chief justice had no right to issue a writ to such sections. Instead of his stopping short of his duty in refusing to issue writs of habeas corpus he issued these writs of habeas corpus when he had no right to issue them. Sir, what was declared? That the county of Alamance was in a state of insurrection, and martial law controlled the county. In whose name does this writ run? In the name of the state. Who is commander in-chief of the state? The governor. He had declared the county to be in a state of insurrection and had put it under military power, and then they ask the chief justice as they have done, to issue his writ of habeas corpes, to go and endeavor to overcome the military force which had possession of the county of Alamance. That proposition is utterly absurd. Sir, I understood the proposition was made before the court when the argument was going on in the habeas corpus cases, that although the governor was commander-in-chief of the military, all the able bodied men within certain ages were under the command of the governor. The chief justice, it was insisted could issue a writ of habeas corpus to the old men and the women and children to execute it. It would make a nice parade against a military force-women going with writs of a civil court with children in their arms to overcome a military force. It would bring on a glorious state

of things. But that is what your honor was asked to do. No man has a higher regard for all these principles of the con stitution and for the writ of habeas corpus than myself, but I say they are to be exercised in times of war and that is the most important time in which they are ever called in requisition. I have always held this, and I hold it to-day, that notwithstanding I hold that doctrine, I hold the other doctrine, that that applies to all places where the civil power has the authority, and that this writ runs into all counties where the civil authority has centrol, but it runs into no-county-it runs into no locality where the country has been declared in insurrection and is in possession of the military. They execute and control and govern that county while that proclamation exists. Sir, here we have the authority of the legislature for this proceeding. Why, what took place during the rebellion. Did not president Lincoln, before the suspension of the writ, have the legislature of Maryland seized? Were not numerous individuals seized before the writ of habeas corpus was suspended? For what did he do it? does any man dot b? Yes, I entertain no question but that many here doubt it, doubt that he did it from any pure motive to protect the life and the liberties of the country. I doubt not there are those who entertain the same opinion of the president of the United States for executing these high authorities which congress had not authorized, that now entertain the opinion against the respondent, that it was out of the worst of motives that he did those acts after the legislature had authorized him and as I say commanded him to do it.

Will any senator contend that in the month of April, 1869, while General Sherman had military possession of a large portion of North Carolina, and held in his military custody a private citizen of North Carolina, that any judge of the courts of the United States had a right to issue the civil writ of habeas corpus, and direct a civil officer to take this private citizen out of the military custody of General Sherman? I think no lawyer will hazard such an opinion. And in this case would the

great principles of liberty incorporated in the amendments to the constitution of the United States be violated? If not. why? Because the country was under military control. Just so was Alamance in legal contemplation after the proclamation of the governor declaring the county of Alamance in a state of insurrection, and all persons in that county were in legal contemplation insurgents, however innocent and unoffending their conduct. I am now speaking of the strict law of the case; and for this decision I refer to Mrs. Alexander's cotton case in Wallace's Supreme Court Reports, vol. 4, page 404and the authorities therein cited by the chief justice.

So that in all these cases, the motive is the very turning point of the case.

The gentleman who last addressed the court thinks this matter of no sort of consequence and he supposes a very extreme case. Those suppositions can always be made and they have the effect to startle timid minds. How was it here, was there any ground for declaring this county of Wake in a state of insurrection? It was not so declared. He might have declared it if these facts had existed that would authorize it as they did in Alamance but if he had declared it, sir, then this question of motive we come up as to those here, but if it were shown that he did it with the view to seize the members of the legislature and the court and prevent his impeachment, then this high court would impeach him because he would have abused his power, would have done this out of bad motives and those motives would have been shown and he would have been convicted. But suppose another case; suppose a large majority of the members of the house and a large majority of the Senators and all the judges were interested, and it was understood they were on the eve of the rising of an insur rection to overthrow the established authorities of the state and this had come to his knowledge. Then he would have a right to take steps to prevent it. Putting extreme cases can have no weight before this high court. It would be a case where he would be undoubtedly guilty if he did as was sup

posed by the learned counsel when there was no ground for his acts; but surely if he did that and he alleged by way of defense that all these authorities had entered into a conspiracy to overthrow the present government and that he was able to prove it, then the evidence would he heard and if the fact was established by it that would justify him even in the extreme case stated.

It was said by the learned counsel in one of his arguments that if Gov. Hloden was justified in issuing this proclamation on account of the disturbed condition of affairs in Alamance, then Gov. Hoffman would have been justified in declaring the city of New York in insurrection on account of the the murder of Nathans. I am surprised that such a proposition should be stated. It is stated upon the assumed ground that all we can say is that certain individuals were murdered in Alamance county, that certain others were scourged and certain others mutilated. They leave out the main point in the case. They say not one stated and which

word about the proposition which we have we expected to prove, to-wit: that the White Brotherhood had banded together and taken the most solemn oaths that they would resist all amendments to the constitution of the United States and all amendments to the constitution of North Carolina since the war, save that of the emancipation of slaves, that they would have nothing to do with the colored people and would do all they could to deprive them of their rights at all hazards. Thet is what we allege and what we expect to prove. Then as to the "Constitutional Union Guard" we expect, if we are permitted to do so, to prove that its members had also taken the most solemn oaths to guard the constitution of the United States as it existed before any of the recent amendments, save that of the emancipation of the slaves, and that they had sworn to resist all the amendments to the constitution of North Carolina save that which gave the slaves their freedom. Expecting as we do to prove these facts, will this high court in the discharge of its judicial functions say that we are not permitted to show a combination of more than one half of the white

« AnkstesnisTęsti »