emnations to be had, and punishments to be
inflicted, in methods unknown to the civil procedure, but are
responsible for an abuse of the power; and that the martial law, as
a necessary adjunct of military movements, may be enforced in time
of invasion or rebellion, wherever the influence and effect of
these movements directly extends.'[6]

[Footnote 6: Sec.716 of 'An Introduction to Municipal Law,' by John Norton
Pomeroy, Esq., Professor of Law in the New York University Law School.
The whole chapter from which the extract is taken is worthy of diligent
perusal, and the writer regrets that want of space alone prevents him
quoting more fully from Professor Pomeroy's lucid exposition of the
doctrine of martial law under our Constitution.]

These conclusions of the law are worthy to be considered carefully in
view of the solemn resolutions of the Chicago platform, that 'military
necessity' and the 'war power' are 'mere pretences' to override the
Constitution.

It remains to say, with reference to the third and fifth resolutions of
this platform, that they are chargeable with an equal and common
ignorance: the third, in ignoring the necessity of the presence of the
military at the elections referred to, in order that disloyalty and
treason might not openly defy the authority of the nation; the fifth, in
ignoring two things, first, the monstrous baseness of the rebel
treatment of our prisoners, who have been starved alive, with a
refinement of cruelty reserved for this Christian age, and practised
only by the Christian chivalry of the South; and secondly, the rebel
refusal to exchange prisoners man for man; the resolution seeking,
moreover, to charge upon the United States Government the fault of both
these rebel violations of humanity. It may be asked, moreover, in
further reference to the third resolution, if the convention really
meant to pledge itself to revolution;[7] and why, if the President, as
chief of 'the military authority of the United States,' should be guilty
of any abuses, the proper remedy is not by impeachment, as provided in
the Constitution? The language of this resolution is gravely suggestive,
and cannot be too closely criticised. It seems to shadow forth some dark
design, which surely is in harmony with the whole tone of hostility to
our Government that pervades the platform. Taken, moreover, in
connection with the fact that the Chicago Convention declared itself a
permanent