Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1861-06-07

discharged; and IL any offence was charget
: which was bailable in it's character, the cour
, was bound to set him at liberty on bail. Ant
the most exciting contests between the Grown
and the people Of England from the time o.
/ Magma Charta were in relation TO the privileg,
of this writ, and they continued until the pass
age of the statute of 3lst Charles H., common
!, ly known as the great habeas corpus act
This statute put an end to the struggle, and
finally and firmly secured the liberty OF the sub
ject from the usurpation and oppression of the ex
ecutive branch Of the government. It never
theless conferred no new right upon the subject
| but only secured right already existing For
although the right could not be justly denied
there was often no effectual remedy against III
violation. Until the statute of the 18th Of
William ILL.,, the judges held their Offices at the
pleasure of the King, and the influence which
he exercised over timid, time serving and parti-
zan judges often induced them, upon some
pretext or another, to refuse to discharge the
party, although he was entitled to 1t by law, OF
delayed their decisions from time to time, 80 as
to prolong the imprisonment of persons who
were obnoxious to the King for their political
opinions, or had incurred bis resentment in any
other way.
The great and iuestimable value of the habe
ds corpus act of the 3lst Charles II. is that II
contains provisions which compel courts and
judges, and all parties concerned, to perform
their duties promptly, in the manner specified in
the statute.
A passage in Blackstone's Commentaries,
showing the ancient state of the law upon this
subject, and the abuses which were practiced
through the power and influence Of the Crown,
and short extract from Hallam's Constitution.
al History, stating the circumstances which gave
rise to the passage of this statute explain brief.
ly, but fully, ell that is material to this subject
Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the LIws
of England, I'D VOL, 1873, l34 says:
"To assert an absolute exemption from i'm
prisonment in all cases is inconsistent with ev-
cry idea of law and political society, and, 10 the
end, would destroy all civil liberty by rendering
it's protection impossible.
"But the glory of the English law consists in
clearly defining the times, the causes, and the
extent, when, wherefore, and to what degree
the imprisonment Of the subject may be lawful.
This it is which induces the absolute necessity
of expressing upon every commitment the rea-
son for which IL is made, that the court, upon q
habeas corpus, may examine into its validity,
and, according to the circumstances of the
case, may discharge, admit to bail, or remand
the prisoner.
"And yet, early in the reign of Charles l., the
Court OF Kings Bench, relying on some arbi-
trary precedents land those, perhaps, misunder
Stood determined that they would not, upon
habsds corpus, either bail or deliver q prisoner
though committed without sny cause assigned
in case he was committed by the special COM
mand of the King or by the Lords of the Privy
Council. This drew on Parliamentary inquiry,
and produced the Petition Of Rights Chas. L
which rectes the illegal judgment, and enact:
that no free man hereafter shall be &c. imprisoned
| D,,k, ,yh IN tho goll
| Mr.. Selden and others were committed by the
Lords of the Council in pursuance of his Majes-
tvs special command, under general charge
Of notable contempts, and stirring up seditioI
against the Kiug and the Government the
Judges delayed for two terms (including, also
the long vacation) 10 deliver an opinion how far
such charge was bailable And when, a.
length, they agreed that 1t was, they, however
annexed condition of finding sureties for thei
good behavior, which still protracted their i'm
prisonment, the Chief Justice, Sir Nichola
Hyde, at the same time declaring that 'if the
were again remsnded for that cause, perhaps th
court would not afterward grant habeas cor.
pus, being already make acquainted with thu
cause of the imprisonment But this was hearC
with indignation and establishment by every
lawyer present, according to Mr.. Selden's owr
account of the matter, whose resentment was
not cooled at the distance of four and twenty
years."
Il ia worthy of remark that the offences charg.
ed against the prisoner in this case, and relied
on as justification for his arrest and imprison-
ment, in their nature and character, and in the
loose and vague manner in which they are sta
ted, bear striking resemblance to those as
signed in the warrant for the arrest of Mr.. Sell
den. And yet, even at that day, the warrant
was regarded as such fragrant violation of the
rights Of the subject, that the delay of the time.
serving judges to set him at liberty upon the
hdbeas corpus issued in his behalf excited uni
versal indignation at the bar. The extract
from Hallam's Constitutional History Is equally
impressive and equally in point. 1t is in vol. 4,
| p. IA:
at is very common mistake, and not only
among foreigners, but many from whom some
know ledge of our constitutional laws might be
expected, to suppose that this statute Of Charles
III. enlarged in great degree our liberties, and
forms a sort of epoch in their history. But
though q very beneficial enactment, and emf
nently remedial In many cases of illegal imprs
onment, IL introduced no new principle, moi
conferred any right upon the subject. From the
earliest records of the English law, no freeman
could be detained in prison, except upon GRIM
inal charge or conviction, or for q civil debt
| In the former case il was always in his power
to demand of the Court of Kings Bench writ
of habeas corpus ab suljieiendum directed to the
person OBTAINING him in custody, by which he
was enjoined to bring up the body of the prison.
er with the warrant of commitment, that the
court might Judge of its suficiency and remand
the party, admit him to bail, Cor discharge him,
according to the nature of the charge. This
writ issued of right, and could not be refused
| BY the court. IL was not to Destow an immu-
nifty from arbitrary imprisonment, which is
abundantly provided for In Magma Chsrta Gf,
indeed, it were not more ancent) that the statute
| of Charles H. was enacted, but 10 cut of the
abuses BY which the Governments lust of pow
er, and the servile subtlety of Crown lawyers,
had impaired so fundamental aprivilege."
While the value set upon this wit in England
has been 80 great that the removal OF the abu-
ses which embarrassed Its enjoyments has
been looked upon as almost q new grant of lib
erty to the subject, it Is lot to be wondered at
that the continuance of the writ thus made tf-
fective should have been the object Of the most
Jealous care, Acoor iiogly, no power in Eng
land, short of that of Parliament, can suspend
or authorize the suspension of the writ of ha6eas
corpus. quote again from Blackstone Il
Comm 1867; "But the happiness of our Con.
stitution s, that il is not left to the executive
power to determine when the danger Of the State
ia so great as to render this measure expedient.
Il Is the Parliament only, or legislative power,
that, whenever it secs proper, can authorize the
Crown, by suspending the habeas corpus for q
short and limited time, to imprison suspected
persons without giving any reason for 90 doing. !"
And if the President of the United States may
suspend the writ, then the Constitution of the
United States has conferred upon him more re.
gal and absolute power over the liberty of the