M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1861-06-20

corpus. or arrest 4 citizen, except IN ald OF
the judicial power. He certainly does not
faithfully execute the laws, il be takes upon
himself legislative power by suspending the
writ Of habess coEpus--and the Judicial pow
er. He certainly does not faithfully execute
tbe laws, il he takes upon himself legmAtiVeI
power by suspendihg The writ Of heabeSs cor.
pus-and the judicial power also. by ares
Iing person without due process Of law
Nor can any argument be hraSn from the
nature Of sovereignty or the necessities of
goyernmentfor self.defense in times OF tu.
multi and danger. Tie Government Of the
United States Is one Of delegated and limit.
81 powers. Ii derives its existance and au.
thority altogether from The Constitution, and
and neither Of its branches, Executive, Leg
islative, OF Judicial, can exercise any Of The
powers OF Government beyond those speci-
hed snd granted. For the tenth article Of the
amendment to the Constitution, in express
terms, provides that the powers not delegated
BY il TO the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or 10 the people,
Indeed, the security against imprisonment
BY executive authority, provided for in the
Eth Article Of lhe Amendments Of the Con-
sIi.ution, which have before quoted, is
nothing more than cory ofa like provision
in the English Constitution, which had been
firmly established before the Declaration Of
Independence.
Blackstone, in his Commentaries, list VOL,
iS7,) states in the following words:
ITO make imprisonment lawful, 1t must
be either b, process from the Courts of Judi
caiuTe or By warrant from some legal officer
having authority TO commit TO prison."
Aud The people Of the United Colonies, who
had themselves lived under its protection
while they were British subjects. were well
aware OF the necessity OF this safeguard Of
their liberty. And no one can believe that
in framing government intended 10 guard
RtiIl mort efficiently the rights aud the lib.
cries Of the citizens against executive en-
croachment and oppression, they would have
conferred on the President power which
the history Of England had proved to be
dangerous and oppressive in the hands Of
the Crown, and which The people Of England
had compelled it 10 surrender alter a long
and obstinate struggle on the part OF the
English executive to usurp and retain it.
The right Of the subject TO the benefit Of
the writ of habeas corpus, 1t must be recol.
)scted, was one Of the greatest points oI
controversy during the long struggle in Eng'
land between arbitrary government and free
institutions, and therefore have strongly at
Ctrscted the attention OF statesmen engaged
IN framing new one, as they supposed free
government than the one which they had
thrown CT by the revolution. For from the
earliest history Of the Common Law, If q
person was Imprisoned no matter by what
suthority--he had right to the writ Of ho
.bess corpus to bring his case before the
Kings Bench; and if no specific offense wal
charged against him IN the warrant Of com
commitment, he was entitled to be forth
with discharged and il the offense was bail
cable In its character, the court was bound t
sSrt him at liberty on bail. And the mos
exciting contests between the Crown and tht
people OF England, from the time Of Magni
Chsfta, where in relation to the privileges o
this wit, and they continued until the pass
sge Of the statute Of 3lst Charles IL, com
monty known as the great habeas corpus act
This statute put amend to the struggle
and finally and firmly secured the liberty o
the subject from the usurpation and oppress
ion Of the executive branch of the govern
ment. II nevertheless conferred no new
right upon the subject, but only secured a
right already existing; for, although the right
could not be justly denied, there was often
no efiectual remedy against its violation.
Until the statute Of the 18th Of William ! 4
the judges held their offices at the pleasure o
The king, and The inhuecce which he exerted
over timd, time. serving and partisan judges
often induced them, upon some pretext OF
another, 10 refuse to discharge tho party, al.
though he was entitled TO it BY law, or de.
layed their decisions from time to time, so as
to prolong the imprisonment Of those who
wefe obnoxious to the king for their political
opinions or had incurred his resentment in
any other way.
The great and inestimable value Of the
habeas CORPUS at the slst Charles II is that
II contains provisions which compel courts
and judges, and all parties concerned, TO per-
form their duties promptly, in the manner
specified in the statute.
A passage in Blackstone's Commentaries,
bhOhnR lhS bNulC VI tuC law upOu llllS suu
jsct, and the abuces which were practiced
through the power and influence of the
Crown, and short extract from Hallam's
Constitutional History, staing the circum-
stances which gave rise to the passage OF this
statute, explain briefly, but fully, all thatis
material to this subject.
Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the
Laws Of England, Sd VOL, l33-ls4, says.
ITO assert ali absolute exemption from
imprisonment in all cases, is inconsistent
with every idea Of law and political society,
snd in the end would destroy all civil liber.
~, by rendering its protection impossible.
"But the glory of The English law con-
sists 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 il is which induces the alb.
soiute necessity of expressing upon every
commitment the reason forwhch it is made,
that the Court upon habeas corpus may
Examine into its validity, and, according to
She circumstances OF the case, may discharge
admit TO bail, or remand the prisoner.
.,ifAnd yet early IN the reign Of Charles l.,
the Court Of Kings Bench, relying on some
arbitrary precedents, (and those perhaps mis-.
undeHtood) determined that they would, not
upon habeas corpus, either bail or deliver
prisoner, though committed without any
cause assigned, in case he was committed
by the special command Of OF the King gor by