C. B. Waite to Richard Yates

Great Salt Lake City

February 12th, 1863.

Hon. Richard Yates,

Governor of Illinois

Springfield Ill.

Dear Sir:

Having resided in the State of Illinois, over twenty years, and having watched its marvellous growth and prosperity, through two decades, I have read your message delivered to the Legislature, on the 5th ultimo, with feelings of pride and admiration.

The progress of our noble State has ever been onward and upward. During the last twenty years, she has been gradually emerging from the shades of Egyptian deuknefs. If she had not been enveloped in those mists of ignorance and superstition, she could not have had the honor of dispelling them.

Of all the mefsages delivered during that time, and I believe I have read

them all, I consider yours the most patriotic and high toned, and at the same the most comprehensive and exhausting, on nearly ever topic treated. ~

You will pardon me if I say a word upon one subject upon which you have but little more than hinted, and which was passed over somewhat lightly, probably because it was considered but incidentally connected with the topics in hand.

I allude to the much mooted doctrine of military arrests. I find no fault with what you have said, but desire to add a suggestion where you left off.

No doubt martial law might have been proclaimed by the President in every State in the Union, the moment eleven States combined together to overthrow the Constitution and the laws. And perhaps that would have been a great stride towards the supprefsion of the rebellion. But whether it would have been or not is now an immaterial question, except in its effect upon the future.

We are to deal, not with what might have been, but with has been and is. The question is, as to the power of the government to make arbitrary arrests, in loyal States, and whether the declaration of martial law is a condition precedent to the exercise of that power.

There is much inherent difficulty in the question; and I do not pretend to have given it so much consideration, as to have an opinion which can be advanced, except, as I said before, by way of suggestion.

But what, I would ask, is the object and scope of a declaration of martial law? Does it not, per se, contemplate, not, indeed, an entire, but a general suspension of the functions of the civil or municipal law? And is such a declaration necefserry except when the laws are so far obstructed, and the civil magistrates so far superseded, as to render the machinery of the municipal law inoperative as a whole? -- In other words would

any individual instances of insubordination, be they ever so merry, be sufficient in themselves, to create the necefsity of martial law, provided that insubordination be not so general, as to infect the whole district of Country under consideration? --

If the last two questions be answered in the negative, then whatever may have been the power, there has never been the existence of a proper military necefsity for the declaration of martial law in the free states. --

And in the absence of such necefsity, would not such a declaration have been more proclaimed against as an exercise of arbitrary power, then the arrests already made? --

As to the remaining questions, whether arrests can be made, in the absence of martial law, I consider that the question would be substantially answered in the reply to the preceding one. --

For if the President was not obliged to proclaim martial law, and if arrests could not be made in the absence of martial law, then a state of things would exist, under which, the President, although he had performed his whole duty in the premises, would have no power to make arrests in the free states.

But such a statement is an absurdity on its face. No proposition can be plainer, than that the exercise of such a power in every State of the Union must be necefsarily incident to the suppression of a rebellion of this magnitude. --

The question must, I apprehend, be narrowed down, to a settlement of the conditions under which that power may be exercised.

With the highest respect, I have the honor to be

Your Obt Svt.

C. B. Waite

C. B. Wait

Great Salt Lake City.

Feby 12th 1863.

Has formerly resided in this state for over twenty years and watched the marvelous growth of this great State Has received the Governors message and read with pride and admiration and having read every message ever delivered and thinks it the most patriotic and high toned.

Writes at length on the subject of the Writ of Habeus Corpus [illegible symbols]

(File)