Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1861-06-19
The baltimore Habeas Corpus Case.
OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITE
STATES.

JOHS hERAYNAS chambers u '"e 0"''eu ''''e' al
The application in this case for writ of haJeas
corpus is made to me under the 18th section of
the Judiciary Act ofl7S9, which renders effectual
for the citizen the constitutional privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus. That act gives tc the
courts of the United States, as well as to each
Justice of the Supreme Court, and to every Dis
trict Judge, power to grant wrts of habeas corpus
for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of
commitment. The petition was presented to me
at w Washington. under the impression that would
order the prisoner to be brought before me there;
but as he was confined in Fort McHenry, at the
city of Baltimore, which Is in my circuit, re-
solved to hear it in the latter city, obedience
to the writ. under such circumstances, would not
withdraw General Csdwallader, who had him in
charge, from the limits of his military COM
mand
The petition presents the following case: The
petitioner resides in Maryland, in Baltimore
county. While peaceably in his own house, with
his family, it was, at o'clock on the morning of
the 25th of May, 1861, entered by an armed
force, protesting to act under military orders.
He was then compel ed to rise from his bed,
taken into custody, and conveyed to Fort Nc
Henry, where he is imprisoned by the command
ing officer, without warrant from any lawful au-
thority.
The commander of the fort, Gen. George Cad
wallader, by whom he is detained in confinement,
in his return to the writ does not deny any of the
acts alleged in the petition He states that the
prisoner was arrested by order of Gen. Keim, of
Pennsylvania, and conducted as a prisoner to
Fort McHenry by his order, and placed in his
(Gen. Cadwallader's) custody, to be there de-
tanned by him as prisoner.
A copy Of the warrant or order, under which
the prisoner was arrested, was demanded by his
ar1 raf1 a1 nd IL oil in
the return that any specific act, constituting an
offense against the laws OF the United States, has
been charged against him upon oath; but he ap-
pears to have been arrested upon general charges
of treason and rebellion, without proof, and
wit out giving the names OF the witnesses, or
specifying the acts, which, in the judgment of
the military officer, constituted these crimes.
And having the prisoner thus in custody upon
those vague and unsupported accusations, he re-
fuses to obey the writ of habe1s corpus, upon the
ground that he is duly authorized by the Presi-
dent to suspend it.
The case, then, is simply this. A military
officer, residing in Pennsylvania, issues an order
to arrest citizen of Maryland, upon vague and
indefinite charges, without any proof, so far as
appears Under this order his house is entered
in the night; he is seized prisoner. and con-
veyed to Fort McHenry, and there kept in close
confinement. And when a hdbeds corpus is
erved on the commanding officer, requiring him
to produce the prisoner before a Justice OF the
Supreme Court, in order that he may examine
into the legality of The Imprisonment, the an
swer to the officer is that he is authorized by the
President to suspend the writ of habeds corpus Al
his discretion, and in the exercise of that discre
ton, suspends it in this case, and on that ground
refuses obedience to the writ.
AS the case comes before me. therefore, un
derstand that the President not only claims the
right to suspend the writ Of habeas corpus him.
SELF at his discretion, but to delegate that discre
tionary power to a military officer, and to leave
it TO him to determine whether he will or will
not obey judicial process that may be served
upon him.
No official notice has been given to the Court:
of Justice, or to the public, by proclamation ol
otherwise, that the President claimed this power
and had exercised it in the manner stated in the
return. And certainly listened to it with some
surprise, for had supposed it to be one of thos,
points of constitutional law upon which there
was no difference of opinion, and that il wa:
admitted on al hands that the privilege of tn,
writ could not be suspended except by act of Con
gress.
When the conspiracy of which Aaron Burr wa.
the head became so formidable, and was so ex
tensively ramifed as to justify, in Mr. Jefferson
opinion, the suspension of the writ, he claimed
nicated his opinion to Congress, with all tn,
proofs in his possession, in order that Congress
might exercise its discretion upon the subject, anC
determine whether the public safety required it
And in the debate which took place upon th'
subject, no one suggested that Mr.. Jefferson
might exercise the powe- himself, if, in his opin
ion. the public safety demanded it,
Having, therefore, regarded the question a
too plain and too well settled to be open to dis
pute, if the commanding officer had stated tina
upon his own responsibility, and in the exercise o
his own discretion he refused obedience to tn
writ, / should have contented myself with refer
ring to the clause in the Constitution, and TO tn
construction it received from every jurist an
statesman of that day. when the case of Bur
was before them. But being thus officially rati
fed that the privilege of the writ has been sus
pended under the orders and by the authority o
the President, and, believing, as / do, that th
| President has exercised power which he doe
not possess under the Constitution a proper re
spect for the high Office he fills requires me I
state plainly and fully the grounds of my opn
ion, in order to show that have not venture
to question the legality of his act without
careful and deliberate examination of the Who'll
subject
The clause in the Constitution which author
zes the suspension of the privilege of the writ G
habeas corpus, is in the 9Th section of the fir:
|
| article.
! This article is devoted to the leg slative de
partment of the United States, and has not th
slightest reference to the executive department
1t begins by providing ''that all legislative pow
ers therein granted shall be vested in a Congres
of the United States, which shall consist of Ser
ate and House of Representatives" And afte
prescribing the manner in which these tw
branches of the legislative department shall b
| IL tn oral 10
legislative powers which it thereby grants. an
legislative powers which it expressly prohibits
and at the conclusion of this specification, claus
is inserted, giving Congress "the power to max
all laws which may be necessary and proper fc
carrying into execution the foregoing powers, an
all other powers vested by this Constitution in th
Government of the United States or in any do
partment of Office thereof"
The power of legislation granted by this latte
clause is by its words carefully confined to th
specific objects before enumerated. But as tn
limitation was unavoidably somewhat indefinite
it was deemed necessary to guard more effectua
ly certain great cardinal principles essential to IL
liberty of the citizen, and to the rights and equa
ity of the States, by denying to Congress, in e,
press terms, any power of legislating over then
It was apprehended it seems, that such legislf
ton might be attempted under the pretext that
, was necessary and proper TO carry into executio
the powers granted; and il was determined tn
there should be no room to doubt, where rights
such vital importance were concerned, and az
cordingly this clause is Immediately followed
an enumeration of certain subjects, to which Il
powers of legislation shall not extend and Il
great importance which the trainers of the Coz
stitution attached to the privilege of the writ I
habeas corpus to protect the liberty Of the citize
is proved by the fact that its suspension, exec
in cases Of invasion and rebellion, is first in Il
list of prohibited powers-and even in the.
cases the power is denied, and its exercise pr
hbted, unless the public safety shall require
II is true that in the cases mentioned Congress
of necessity the judge of whether the public saf
ty does or does not require it; and its judgment
conclusive But the introduction of these wor
is standing admonition to the legislative boo
of the danger of suspending it, and of the e
treme caution they should exercise before th'
give the Government of the United States SUI
powers over the liberty of n citizen.
II is the second article of the Constitution tn
provides for the organization of the Execute
Department, and enumerates the powers CO
ferred on it,and prescribes its duties. And III
Ill, ,Do~ar nvar tba Ebartv of tho citiza No