Recurring to the action of the government, it may be stated that at first a call was made for 75,000 militia; and, rapidly following this, a proclamation was issued for closing the ports of the insurrectionary districts by proceedings in the nature of blockade.  So far all was believed to be strictly legal.  At this point the insurrectionists announced their purpose to enter upon the practice of privateering.

Other calls were made for volunteers to serve for three years, unless sooner discharged, and also for large additions to the regular army and navy.  These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon, under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity; trusting then, as now, that Congress would readily ratify them.  It is believed that nothing has been done beyond the constitutional competency of Congress.

Soon after the first call for militia, it was considered a duty to authorize the commanding general in proper cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or, in other words, to arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to the public safety.  This authority has purposely been exercised but very sparingly.  Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done under it are questioned, and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who has sworn to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” should not himself violate them.  Of course some consideration was given to the questions of power and propriety before this matter was acted upon.  The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution in nearly one third of the States.  Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen’s liberty that, practically, it relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very limited extent be violated?  To state the question more directly, are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?  Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?  But it was not believed that this question was presented.  It was not believed that any law was violated.  The provision of the Constitution that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it,” is equivalent to a provision—­is a provision—­that such privilege may be suspended when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does require it.  It was decided that we have a case of rebellion, and