{"character_count": 5812, "word_count": 999, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9740999937057495], "ccnet_perplexity": [674.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 DAWSON. who addressed the committee the other day, told us that General Wilkinson declared martial-law at New Orleans. Where was Iudge Hall then, that he did not vndl- cate the supremacy of the laws and the au- thority of his court? Why did he not then inAict the penalty of the law upon the per petrator of such a gross infraction of the Constitution which he was sworn to defend and support? Perhaps his admirers here will tell us that he did not advise, and,urge, and entreat General Wilkinson to declare mar l tial-law. l believe that feature does distin- guish the two cases, and gentlemen are entl- i tied to all the merit they can derive from 1t. am informed that in one of those trying cases, during the last war, which required great energy and nerve, and sell-sacrtlcmg patriotism, General Gaines had the firmness l to declare martial-law at Sacketts harbor; and when, after the danger had passed, he submitted himself to the civil authorities, he received the penalty of the law in the shape of public dinner, instead of a yindictive punishment doubt not many other cases of similar nature may be found, if any one will take the trouble of examining the history of our two wars with Great Britain.

 But if the gentleman from New York in- tended to assert that 1t was unprecedented for Congress to remunerate military and na- val commanders forfnes, judgments, and dam ages, assessed against them by courts for violating the laws in the honest discharge of their public duties, 1 must be permitted to inform him that he has not examined the le- gislaton of his country Ill that respect. II the gentleman will read the speech of the pure, noble, and lamented Linn, i'll the Sen ate, in May, 1S12, he will there find long list of cases in which laws of this kind have been passed He said:

 '.There were precedents innumerable where officers have been found. guilty of breaches of law in the discharge of their public duty, and, therefore, calling for the interference of just government Of these, 1t is only ne- cessary to introduce few where the Gov ernment did interpose and give relief to the injured officer. These cases commenced as early as August, 1790, and have continued down to the present time. Thus, in April, 1918, Major General Jacob Brown was m- demnified for damages sustained under sen- tence of civil law. for having confined an in- diyidual found near his camp suspected of traitorous designs. At the same session, Cap tain Abstain and Lieutenant Wells were in- demnifed against nine judgments, amounting to upwards of $6,000, for having confined nine individuals suspected of treachery to the country. In this case 1t was justly re- marked by the Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that, if 1t should be determined that no law authorized the act, yet would respectfully suggest that there may be cases in the exlgencies of war, in which, If the commander should transcend his legal pow CT, Congress ought to protect hm, and those who acted under him, from consequential damages

 C In the case of General Robert Swartwout, in 1923, the committee by whom 1t was re- ported, stated that 1t Is considered one ol those extreme cases of necessity in which an over-stepping of the established legal rules of society stands fully justiied,'o ID

 will not occupy the time of the commit tee with further quotations, but will refer those who may wish to examine the subject to the speech itself, and the cases there cited These cases fully sustain the position 1 have taken, and prove that the Government has repeatedly recognised and sanctioned the doe Urine that, in cases of '' eFtrene necessity, the commander is FuLLY JUSTIFIED" in super seding the civil laws; and that Congress will always < make remuneration when they arc satisfied he acted with the sole view of pro- noting the public interests confided to his command" The principle, deducible from all the cases, is, that when the necessity Is extreme and unavoidable, the commander is fully justified; and when it is less impera- tive, he is excusable, provided he acted in good faith and in either event, Congress will always make remuneration.

 Then, sir, trust have shown to the sat isfacton of all candid men, that, instead ol this being unprecedented, the oppostion- the fierce, bitter, vindicative opposition to its passage, is unprecedented in the annals o American legislation. Are gentlemen desi- rous of making General Jackson an excep- tion to those principles of justice which have prevailed in other cases2 They mistake the character of the American people, if they suppose they can sever the cords which bind them to their great benelactor, by continued acts of wanton injustice and base ingratitude Why this persevering resistance to the will ol the people, which has been expressed in a manner too imperative and authoritive to be successfully resisted? The people demand this measne; and they will never be quieted until their wishes shall have been respected and their will obeyed. They will ask-they will demand the reason why General Jack son has been selected as the victim, and his case made an ignominious exception to the principles which have been adopted in all other cases, from the foundation of the Gov ernment until the present moment Was there any thing in his conduct at New Or leans to justify this wide departure from the uniform practice of the Government, and sin gle him out as an outlaw, who had forfeited all claim to the justice and protection of his country? Does the man live, who will have the hardihood to question his patriotism, his honesty, the purity of his motives in every act he performed, and every power he exer- cised on that trying occasion' While none dare impeach his motives, they tell us that he assumed almost unlimited power. con- l n,an1 hin, for oxiropo,- ,o1uiraJ