Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1858-04-03
Che Auti- 5lauerp Buole.
REPEAL OF THE HABEAs CORPUS ACT.

We chronicle with shame and modification
another exhibition of disg-acetul Servilism On the
part of the present Legislature The llabeas
Corpus act Of the last Legslature.is is repealed.
That our readers may understand exactly what
has been done. we propose to state in rs few words
o. possible the object and effect Of the law thus
blotted from tho Statute Book
The writ of Habeas Corpus is simply IL COM
msnd, addressed in behalf of the State, to some
person holding another person in custody, or
under restraint, requiring the person thus address
cd 30 bring the body Of the person detained before
. judge, in order that it may be seen whether the
custody or restraint be legal or not
1t WAS fret provided in the time Of Charles the
BseOnd, and it's object was to protect Engishmen
against all unlawful Imprisonment especially by
ths despotic power of the Government. The
name Of the writ, Uubeas Corpus explains its
eharscter--Habeds, have thou- Corpus, the body.
10 England there was little danger the writ
would be disobeyed in any case. The auth ''ity
Of The Court which issued the writ extended
shrou ghOut the realm. II any one to whom the
writ directed. refused or neglected to obey it,
hs vas subject 20 be arrested and brought before
tho Court and fined and imprisoned AT it's discre'
tion. There was almost no possibility that the
person alleged to be uniuwiuiiy restrained could
bs Withdrawn beyond the jurisdiction Of the
Court. or that disooedence 10 tho writ could es-
cape punishment.
r This srit with many other safeguards Of per-
sonal liberty wns adopted from the beginning
into every code of every American State, and 81
sacred has il ueen esteered. that it has been
usual to provide by constitutional guaranty
against any suspicion or denial OF It's benefits.
In the several States. however, communica
ton bacame easy and rapid, it wus snon apparent
that any person hulding another 81 ether as child,
ward. apprentice, sorsan, or Otherwise. under
restraint alleged 10 be unlawful. could disnbey
the writ aud escape all punishment, by simply
going across the State boundary-Uften imagi
nary line--nto another Jurisdiction.
To make tie writ effectual, therefore, it has in
some States been provided by law that instead of
being directed TO the person holding the custody,
and therefore interested in defeating the object
sought. it should be directed to the Sheriff who
should himself bring the person alleged 70 be
illegally restrained before the Court giving notice
70 the restrainer to appear and assert his claim to
cus.ody;
1t is obvious that these enactments do not
change the ohjec: or practical effect Of the writ.
but only secure is against evasion and disobe-
dience. ''
In l74S. this principle was introduced ints Ohio
. Legislation by a Democratic Legi,aturc. In
th0se days it had not come to be understood that
the "chief end" Of IL Democrat lis to catch mig
gers" for slave masters but the Legislature,
relying on the presumed disposition of all officers
Of all courts to obey wrts addressed to them. ex-
ceptsd fram the operation of the new law State
officers and Federal Marshas, and their respec.
tive deputies.
Subsequent experience, however, showed that
this presumption in regard to Federal Marshals
and their deputies was not well grounded. In
repeated instances they dsobeyed the commands
of the State courts, and in one case, marked by
extraordinary circumstances. when the court held
by Democratic judge. undertook to enforce its
command by imprisoning the Marshal for dsobe.
dence, its action treated nullity. and the
Marshal discharged by the order of Federal
judge,
II was clear to the dullest apprehension that if
Federal Marshals could disobey with impunity
State writs of habeas corpus, the State could no
songer be regarded rs sovereign within her own
jurisdiction, or as competent to protect the liber-
lies of her citizens against illegal force and
violence.
The Republican Legislature, therefore, extended
the principle of the act Of 1917 to all cases (mak.
ing no exceptions as 10 Marshals or other offcers)
where it might he made to appear to the satisfac.
tion Of the Court asked 10 issue the writ that
there was reasonable ground to believe it would
be disobeyed. In all such cases the Legislature
directed that the writ should be issued--not the
party alleged to be guilty of the illegal restraint
and who would probably disobey it,-but to the
oherh requiring him to bring the person restrain.
ed, before the Court. and give notice to the re-
strainer to appear and assert his title to the
custody. if he actually had any No good citizen
could reasonably object to this.
II would be Q necessary provision, to secure the
effect and purpose of the writ. 1t was necessary
60 maintain the dignity and independence of the
State. political organization incompetent to
protect the liberty of all persons within it's uris.
diction, is despicable thing, unworthy the name
Of State.
Yet this act is now repealed. under the miser-
able pretext that there is danger of collision
between the State and Federal oficcrs; but really
as an Offering Of the Sovereignty and Honor Of
the State upon the altar of Despo:ism to propi
tate that Slave Oligarchy, which curses and de-
grades our country When will these things have
Sn cad p OAio STATE Journal.