eir
blood on the battle-field, I have learned that many approve the course
taken with Mr. Vallandigham, while I have not heard of a single one
condemning it. I cannot assert that there are none such. And the name
of President Jackson recalls an instance of pertinent history. After the
battle of New Orleans, and while the fact that the treaty of peace had
been concluded was well known in the city, but before official knowledge
of it had arrived, General Jackson still maintained martial or military
law. Now that it could be said that the war was over, the clamor against
martial law, which had existed from the first, grew more furious. Among
other things, a Mr. Louaillier published a denunciatory newspaper article.
General Jackson arrested him. A lawyer by the name of Morel procured the
United States Judge Hall to order a writ of habeas corpus to release Mr.
Louaillier. General Jackson arrested both the lawyer and the judge. A Mr.
Hollander ventured to say of some part of the matter that "it was a dirty
trick." General Jackson arrested him. When the officer undertook to serve
the writ of habeas corpus, General Jackson took it from him, and sent him
away with a copy. Holding the judge in custody a few days, the general
sent him beyond the limits of his encampment, and set him at liberty with
an order to remain till the ratification of peace should be regularly
announced, or until the British should have left the southern coast. A day
or two more elapsed, the ratification of the treaty of peace was regularly
announced, and the judge and others were fully liberated. A few days more,
and the judge called General Jackson into court and fined him $1000 for
having arrested him and the others named. The General paid the fine, and
then the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when Congress refunded
principal and interest. The late Senator Douglas, then in the House
of Representatives, took a leading part in the debates, in which the
constitutional question was much discussed. I am not prepared to say whom
the journals would show to have voted for the measure.

It may be remarked--first, that we had the same Constitution then as now;
secondly, that we then had a case of invasion, and now we have a case of
rebellion; and, thirdly, that the permanent right of the people to public
discussion, the liberty of speech and of the press, the trial by jury, the
law of evidence, and the habeas corpus suffered no detriment whatever
by that con