Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-04-07
CONGRESS.
HOUSE or RspREsExrA4Yrn
WrnNEsnAx rEr- Is.

I
the consideration of the motion of Mr..
| Broom to refer his resolution relative to the
writ OF haoeas corpus, TO u committee of
the whole housewives 49--Noes SO.
Mn. ELLIO r-Mr Speaker, made
several efforts, sir, during the discussion
| OF yesterday, 10 become cntit,cd TO the
privilege of addressing yourself s the house
uDon the present question, in which l was
unfortunately disappointed. Had l sue
cecdcd, my remarks would have been We
! ry concise, and / feel no disposition even
/ now to render them tedious. l Shall take
occasion, however, ut the outset, to declare
that | experience none Of that fastidious
deicacy with which the minds ofsome gen.
! tiemen appear to be impressed, in relation
to this motion. ] have no ambition to be
considered one Of those " silky ducking
/ CbservantS, who trim their lutes niccly,"
! on a question Of this character, on subject
/ o. this magnitude nor do | discover that
profound darkness which the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Early) has described.
II grope in no gloom. Al is light and lu-
minous around me. The path is plain.
The way is clear and cnvironed with no
, difficulties.
Gentlemen have generally been disposed,
and l think with great propriety, to con-
slider the subject in two points Of view.
( First, to examine the merits of the propo-
sed resolution upon general principles, alb
ssracted from all connection with events
that have occurred, either recent or dis
| tant. Secondly, to consider the proDrietv
of exercising the supreme legislative pow
/ cr, to preclude the recurrence of events
which have sacrificed fora time "the ho-
! ly attributes OF the constitutions" to Dor
row The language of the great violator Of
the constitution himself, a. the shrine of
military power.
( Upon ting irst point, gentlemen who have
expressed their sentiments have been u
nanimors, or nearly so, in declaring that
legal provisions of the kind now contcmpla-
ted ought to he made, at proper time, if
those now existing are insufficient and IN
operative. Those who have told us that
the British statutes upon the subject of the
writ of habeas corpus. arc in force in the
,. United States, or even that il IL doubtful
whether they are SO or not, need not have
told us that thev are not professional men :;
! twas work OF supcrcrogati0n. No pro-
I fossional man could for a moment enter
tain the idea that the statutes ofGrcat Bri
tain are laws of the United States. The
question may be considered as untletermin-
ed, whether the common law of England,
or any part of it, which has not been eX-
! preSsiy recognized BY our constitution and
statutes, is law in the United States, consl-
dercd i'm their federal character it is at
least we'll known that upon that question,
unanimous cpiuiondocs nOJ eXis tin the first
judicial tribunal of orr country. For one,
] do not believe that the United States, as
The United States possess any code OF com
mon law. know Of no laws of the union
but the constitution and the statutes.-That
! constitution S those statutes have recognized
or rather referred "a certain portions of the
common law, and particularly to certain
technical common law terms and rules, as
Jules ofpractice in the federal courts /; and
beyond those the courts have no common
law powers. At all events we have not a.
dopted any Of the British statutes, s, parti-
cuIariy, * by mere application too, statutes
highly penal in their operation. The
doctrine is too absurd to BE countenanCcd,
upon serious reflection, b. any man ofCom-
mon disccrnment. The Con5titution has de-
ciavcd that "rhe privilege of the writ OF
habcas corpus shall not be suspended. un-
less when in cases of invasion or rebellion,
the nubic safety shall require it." But
neither the constitution nor your laws have
made il n positive duty of the courts 20 is
sue the writ in any particular case; still
less have thev secured the performance OF
that duty by any penal sanctions. Can it
then be improper tOpTovide means To cocrcc
the courts and officers Of the United States
in this particular, aud to leave to all our
jcitizeus, ut all times and underall crcum-
stances, such an invaluable constitutional
privilege Very few will deny or doubt the
iproDrictycf the measure. But many viii say
ithat ic isili timed, and thc question of time
naturally introduces rs to the second scene
(of discussion.
It is said that it is improper Gt the pre-
4 sent period TO agitate the question now un-
der consideration. In my apprehension the
objection is Il very strange one. The cnnsti-
tuition has just been violated NY the comman-
! der of your army violated at The point Of
/ the bevonct, apd IN more than one or two
of its most essential articles. In addition
~ Tive celebrated part Of that instrument
which prohibits The suspension ofthc li1be-
as corpus. except by the supreme civil pow
er in crises Of great national danger, Sc
vcral NJ those amc1.latofy articles which
peculiarly secure the rights OF the citizen,
and the adoption OF which, on that account,
was necessary 90 reconcile the majority Of
the people TO the original constitution it.
sell. have Been disrcgarled and dcridcd by
"A military chicstain. J n|lude ~ the fol-
loving articles, all of which have been VIZ
olatca in -;ost Tfthcir essential provisions.
"H,f.A The RIGHT Of the people to be
secure in thcir persons, houses. papers and
effects, against unreasonable searches and