M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1861-06-27
THE MERRY MAN CASE.
Opinion of Chief-J us,ice Taney.

7 z ~ 70 NOAlhy Va SefN~N N--~
fehses charged against the prisoner 10
this case, and relied on as q justihca-
ton for his arrest and Imprisonment,
lin their nature and character, and in |
the loose and vague manner in which
they are stated, bear striking resetn.
blance to those assigned in the war
rsEt for the arrest 81 Mr.. Selden, -
And vet, even at that day, tie war
rant was, regarded as such a fragrant
violation OF the rights OF the subject,
that the delay Of the time.serv!ng
Judges to set him at liberty upon the
habeas corpus issued in his behalf ex-
cited universal indignation at the bar.
The extract from Hallman's Constitu.
tiOnal History is equally impressive
and equally in point. IL is iniyolI4,
p. 14aais.ua ,uo'i'm Fe"a,s ''u'ag'.e
ut is q very common mistake, and
not only among foreigners, but many
from whom some knowledge of our
constitutional laws might be expected,
to suppose that this statue OF Charles
II enlarged in a great degree our lib
erties, and firms a sort Of epoch in
their history. But though a very
beneficial enactment, and eminently
remedial in many cases OF illegal i'm.
prisOnment, It introduced no new
principle, nor conferred any right
upon the subject. From the earliest
records Of the English law no freeman
could be detained in prison except
upon a crimioal charge, or conviction,
or for civil debt. In the former case
1t was always in his power to demand
of tie Court Of Kings Bench a writ
of habeas corpus and subjic iendum
directed to the person OBTAINING him
in custody, by which he was eDjcined
to bring up the body Of the prisoner
with the warrant Of commitment that
the Court might Judge Of its sufficiency
and remand the party, admit him to
bail, or discharge him, according to
the nature Of the charge. This writ
issued Of right and could not be re.
fused by the Court. 1t was not tc
bestow an immunity from arbitrary
imprisonment, which 10 abundantly
! Epfoyided for in Magma Chorta, lif iu
4 deed il we're not more ancientJ tba,
the statute Of Charles II was enacted
but to cut of the abuses by which the
Governments lust Of power and the
servile subtlety of Crown lawyers had
impaired 80 fundamental a privilege" )"
While the value set upon the writ
in England has been so great that the
removal Of the abuses which embar-
rassed its its epjoyments have been
loobed upon as almost new grant oi
, liberty to the subject, it is not to be
wondered at that the continuance ol
the writ thus made effective should
: have been the object Of the most jeal'
ous care. Accordingly, no power in
, England short Of that of Parliament
can suspend or authorize the suspen-
sion of the writ of hsbeas corpus. /
quote again from Blackstone Il Comm
1857: "But the happiness Of ouI
Constitution is, that 1t is not left 10 the
executive power to determine when
1.-The danger OF the State is so great as
to render this measure expedient. II
lis the Parliament only, or legislative
t power, that, whenever it sees proper,
can authorize the Grown, by suspend.
. ing the habeas corpus for a short and
limited time, to impriSon suspected
persons without giving any reasons
for so doing.'' And if the President
Of the United States may suspend the
d. writ, then the Constitution OF the
n United states has conferred upon him
more regal and absolute power over
the liberty Of the citizen than the peo
d pie of England have thought it safe to
? intrust to the Crown--a power which
h the Queen OF England can not exercise
! at this day, and which could not have
2 ? been lawfully exercised by the soye
: reign, even In the reign Of Charles l.
y But / am not left to form my judg'
q mept upon this great question from
I analogies between the English Gov
eminent and our own, OF, the com
!, mentaries of English julrists, or tht
{ decisions Of English courts - although
b upon this subject they are entitled L
{ tile highest Iespect, and are justly re
garded and received as authoritiye b.
u our courts ofjustice. Toguide nae u
a right conclusion, | have the Com
mentaries on the Consultation ofith
United States Of, the late Mr.. Justic
}, Story not only yoneof the most emf
q nebt jutists Of the age, but for a loni
D time one Of the brightest ornaments Q
the Supreme Court Of the Units
9 States, and also the clear and authora
B tive decision oftbat court itself, give
e more than a half q century since, an
5 conclusively, establishing the princi
ID pies have above stated.
II Mr.. Justice Story, speaking in hi
O Commentaries of the -babeas corpu