Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1855-09-25
Destruction Of the Habeas Corpus Writ.

SylVaIlld 10 issue WIFI Oh haDeaS corpus, on the
prayer of one of its citizens, made in due form,
and complaining that he is illegally restrained
Of his liberty, was formally announced on Sat-
urday, in the case of Passmore Williamson
This decision, when stripped Of the legal intre-
cacies in which it is involved will be found to
be the commencement of discussion more i'm
portant in principle and more momentous in its
far-reaching consequences, than any which has
been agitated by the people of America since
the colonies disputed with Great Britain the
right of absolute taxation. 1t is a discussion
which involves not only the whole question of
the sovereign power Of the States over their
own citizens, but the fundamental and constitu-
tional rights of the individual. And however
diversified mems opinions may be, by prejudice
or party feeling, at the commencement, the in
evitable result must be, that all will come to the
same conclusion. The invioable and sacred
right of habeas corpus is one for which man.
kind struggled through centuries of oppression,
and which it has been the first care Of new
states and constitutions to hedge around and
guard by every possible means. But the decis-
ion Of the Supreme Court just made, says virtu-
ally that this right no longer exists, as right
inalienabIe, but is privilege to be enjoyed at
the pleasure and discretion of the Judge of
whom it is demanded. The decision, in fact,
LAYS it down as the law, that habeas corpus is
of no more stringent value than writ of error,
and that Judge is bound to refuse the habeas
corpus, ''if he is satisfied that the prisoner will
be remanded." If this is not absolute destruc-
ton of the writ of habeas corpus, as modern
civilization, especially in America, understands
it, then we do not know the meaning of words.
1t gives the liberty of the citizen entirely into
the keeping of the judge. If, "he is satisfied
that the prisoner will be remanded," he may
refuse the writ Suppose it were possible that
the Judge entertained personal hostility
against prisoner-and such thing Is possi-
BILE; or suppose that political reason existed
for Judge to assist in carrying out against the
prisoner some policy desired by the government
which appointed him, OF the party which elect
ed him, he would only have to say that she
was satisfied that the prisoner will be remand
ed,' to be justified in refusing the writ, and
keep the man in prison all his life: Nobody
could question his motives-or if he did, the
Judge could send his questioner to Jail for con-
tempt, and keep him there as long as he pleas
ed. There would be literally no remedy, and
no escape, for either of them.
But the question that naturally arises, is,
how should the Judge be " satisfied that the
prisoner would be remanded," before he has
had hearing! What business has the Judge
to decide the case until it comes up! In his
capacity as judge, he does not as yet know
any thing about the case, and he is bound by
the law to believe that the petitioner, as stated
in his application, IS illegally imprisoned
When he is brought up, it is for those who have
restrained him Of his liberty to show unequiv-
ecaliy that they had good legal authority for
doing so. They are the accused parties-and
accused of heinOus offence, that of depriving
a citizen of his liberty. 1t is for them to de-
fend thcmselvcs-not him. The Judge has no
right to any opinion on the su, ,ject at ALL until
both parties have been heard. TO make the
habeas corpus a right discretionary with
Judge to grant or withhold, is to make it no
right at a-is to destroy the right.
Now we wish it to be distinctly understood
that, in the discussion of this subject, We have
nothing to do with the fanatics of the William
Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Philips stripe, nor
with the demagogucs of anti-slavery, such as
Seward and Sumner---nor yet with such thick
headed political suicides as Stephen A. Douglas,
or the ultraists and disunonsts of the South.
All these have nothing whatever to do with
the question---they are thousand miles remov-
ed from it. From the point Of view in which
we alone consider it, there is no question of
slavery or anti-slavery, of Wheelers or James,
of riots Or rescues. 1t is simply as an attack
upon fundamental right of the American cit
izcn, that we deal with the decision of the Su-
preme Court. No doubt the demagogues and
fanatics, of every hue and every section, will
mix themselves in the affair, how and whenev-
er they can. But we have nothing to do with
them. They are, to us, all equally olious and
repulsive---they are the loc,lsts of the political
atmosphere, equally dreaded and loa,hsome.--
What we have TO do is to try and get at the
real meaning and tendency of the acts of pub
lie bodies and authorities. and to say the one
word Of truth which too often, in the smoke and
dust Of controversy, is entirely lost sight OF and
never turns up at all.
We therefore say, that in our opinion, the
decision Of the Supreme Court, is fatal attack
upon the right Of habeas corpus, and in its d.
rect tendency, tyranical and despotic. For the
rest, the whole tone of the decision displays, in
striking degree, that dangerous and insidi-
ously growing tendency of our conr,s to tacitly
protect each other by their rulings" and thus
TO make their collusion Of opinion or decision
on points OF etiquette, superior to the laws and
the constitution on which it is founded. For
instance, If court perpctrates an injustice up
on an individual, and is questioned why it has
done so, 1t is no answer to say that it was in
accordance with the " rules OF the court or the
precedents" of practice. Precedents and
rules of courts are merely matters of convenience
and they are scattered to the winds in presence
OF legal and constitutional right of the hum
blest individual. We have Eeen for years lo-
sing sight Of this, as they have in England, and
our courts have gradually become more usurp-
ing and insolent. They are, to speak the plain
truth by the help of their hitherto unquestoned
power of making their own rules, establishing
their own precedents. and deciding their own
contempts, capable of becoming band of organ
ized despots and oppressors, carrying with them
the whole power OF the state, and setting at de-
fiance, laws. rights and constitutions. And of
all these courts, that which ought to be most
jealously watched is the United States federal
Judiciary and its mnions, when dealing with
the citizens OF an independent state. We un-
dertake to say that there is not an unprejudiced
citizen Of Penn. whose blood will not tinge
with shame when he reads the decision Of our
Supreme Court, and feels the obsequious spirit
OF subserviency to the federal court, which per-
vades it, And when he reads at the conclu-
sion, an unblushing acknowledgment that the
Supreme Court have looked at this case IL the
IiUht II has boon b., vIoc..d <,,, of