The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-06-03


idaa iaag be formed ffon gaaoe at single ii'is
of disoussion which it adopted in the earlier arti-
Gle We refer to ths use of quotation from
Judge Story, which we give in full, with the OBJ
seryarions originally accompanying it. The fol-
lowing is tie passage
The clause of the Constitution of the United States in
relation to the writ of hobeas corpus and its suspension
Is in the following words:
The privilege of the writ of ha6eas corpus shall not
be suspended unless when Of rebellion or nva-
sion the public safety may require it,
AS this clause is enumerated among the grants and
reservations of power ordained by the Constitution in de-
filming the jurisdiction of Congress it has been generally
held that the authority to suspend the writ in question
belongs to the National Legislature. Without express
ing any defnve opinion this effect Judge Story,
commenting on this provision of the Constitution says,
al toond SEEM as the is given to Congress to sus
pend the writ OF hdbedS corpus in Of rebellion or in
vason that the right judge whether the exgency had
arisen must eTclusireiy belong to that body
1t is impossible not to see that the chief pur
pose of this paragraph was TO convey the impress
sion that, although the authority TO suspend the
ha5cqs corpus "has been generally held" to belong
to Congress, Judge STORY, at all events, one of
the highest authorities upon constitutional law
| had not ventured "a deiinitive opinion" to that
effect, in a work expressly written upon the con-
struction Of the Constitution. In its issue of Sat
urday, however, the htclhgencT objects to this
| Interpretation, alleging that "the point of lis oh
''servations was directed to the question whether
"Congress exclusively possessed the power of sus-
| 'pending the writ In other words, the pur.
pose was to press Judge Story into The service,
as authority for the doubt whether Congress might
not have the suspensory power; and yet the Pres
! ident enjoy it as well.
Now without the plainest perversion, Judge
SToRY's authority cannot be set up for either o.
the doubts suggested. The quotation IN question
istaken from SToRYs Commentaries, (vol 2, sec
1922 1t forms part of Chapter 80, which i;
expressly dedicated (see section 1891 to "proh
"tions and limitations upon 'the powers of Con
"gress." The very pages upon which the habca
corpus is discussed are headed "P0wERs OF Coz.
GRESs-HABEAs CoRpUs." There is not sugges
ton, nor an intimaton, in the chapter, in thu
whole work, any where, that there is any doub
as to the jurisdiction of Congress over the subject
Nor is there any ntimation of a doubt as to the
exclusiveness Of that jurisdiction. The quotation
in dispute certainly contains none 1t does no
raise question by the words Kit seems,' as tc
whether any one besides Congress has authority
an inference of law, that Congress, being
clothed 10y the Constitution with the power TO sus
pend the writ, in certain cases, must be the excu
sive Judge.of whether the exgency has arisen in
those cases, and its action must be conclusive OF
all the world, as to the propriety of the suspen
sion. Judge STORY meant only to announce tht
familiar principle, that, when legislative discre
ton is exercised by competent legislative act, ne
tribunal or individual can go behind the act, Oh
question that the discretion was rightfllly exer
cised. Thus the authority vested in Congress tC
declare war implies The exclusive right in Con
gress 10 judge Of the cases in which the auhorit,
should be used. If there were paragraph il
SroRY's Commentaries, asserting this principle
with the prefix of Kit seems, the Intelligencc
would hardly be justified in quoting it as the init
nation of a doubt in Jad ge STORY S mind whethei
the President had not the war-naking power a.
well as Congress. We may add that the marglna
references of Judge Story make this explanation
of his meaning even more indubitable than hi:
language Itself.
With regard to the merely personal observation
Of the iatd,igcHcu on Saturday, we have only tc
say, that it is not our fault if that journal ha
failed 10 be aware that VIC have both studied ant
discussed "the anomalous condition of our publi
''atfairs as well in its causes as in its Effects }
The ha3l{Geacey has frequently done us the homo
to transfer TO its columns our articles upon tn
national crsis-sometmes in full, and sometime
with such omissions as it purposes required, and
not unirequently, with expressions Of its very dis
tinguished appreciation. 1t might welr afford
therefore, 10 do US the justice OF admitting, tina
while we have been unable TO join it in giving aiC
and comfort to the Administration, we have still
not reached our humble conclusions to the con
trary, without some show Of reason for our faith
or the want of it. Whether this justice be dom
us not, we shall require co gent logic thar
that of the Iateiligeacer to convince us, that a con
stitutional government can possibly be in the
right, when it is treading down some sacred fun
damental principle of law and liberty at everj
step of its progress. And when we find one of h
ablest and most respectable journals of the coun
try apologizing for the usurpations of such gov
| ernment, and Indirectly endeavoring to reconcile
a free people TO military necessity as a subSt
tute for the Constitution, we must confess our dis
| position 10 regard what the Iptelligencer denom
mates 'acerbity' of comment, as but the moder-
ate expression Of just and becoming indigna,