Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-03-24

tigation IL j.. therefore, no sperial right of an
innocent man. IL belongs 20 innocent and guilty
alike The writ i demanded by both. is sued
out by both. and. perhaps. "a often results in re
handing a. IN di-chsrging prisoner.
In New York every JUDGES compelled by law.
under heavy penalties. 90 issue the writ on pet-
ton. No Judge in this city Except in the Uni
ted States Courts can refuse TO issue IT, Z he
Judge : not responsible for it, execution. The
Sheriff Is the officer 10 whom J. entrusted the duty
of bringing 1.-The body before the Judge, and the
suspension orders OF the President of the United
States have thus far been understood To operate
only 10 prevent the execution OF the order by the
Sheriff We are not aware that any Judge ia this
State regards himself as absolved from the statu-
tory necessity OF issuing the writ by any order Of
the President Doubtless a Judge would issue
writ required, on proper petition, in any ease.
The power to suspend tie privilege OF the writ,
exercised bv the President. has not been recOg-
nized by any State Court IN America far
We are az present informed. In the United States
Courts the writ Is purely statutory right, given
by United States statute, which regulates the
powers and duties of the Judge IN reference To it
We do not know how far the United States Judges
have assented TO the power OF the President 10 IN
terfere with that statute but our understanding of
the matter. on the whole information before the
public. il that the President has not formally sus-
pended the privilege of the writ, but has ia
tain special instances instructed disObedience To
20 the writ. Ii the contrary Is true We shall be
very glad To be informed. and il would ut once
place the whole matter in n shape to be discussed
with clearer knowledge of what powers are
claimed TOR the President In the Merriman
case it appeared that some one. on behalf of the
Government. did claim that by some verbal or
written order the President had suspended the
issue. or privilege, or effect OF the writ in that
particular case, but we are wholly in the dark as
TO the actual order made by the President, and
what II WAS that he claimed To suspend
The expression of the Constitution j., THE
privilege of the writ Of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except" &c. What may be suspended,
therefore, is The pririiege OF the writ Apparently
this excludes all idea OF the power To stop the Ell
feet OF the writ after il i once issued in favor of
prisoner. but it may he contended that the priv
iese goes with the writ and can he arrested and
suspended at any moment by competent authori-
~ But this authority must be clear and ample
If it exists anywhere
A review of the history of the writ will not help
IL at all To ascertain where the power OF sus-
pending The privilege exists, A great deal of
paper has been wasted in discussing the English
law the subject. The whole argument is in a
nut shell. for sensible minds and sensible law
yers especially.
The privilege of this writ is in no respect differ
ent from the privilege OF any other writ The
privilege OF the writ OF habeas corpus il Just the
same right ot Il citizen a. the privilege of Il writ
OF maRdanas, or writ OF prohibition, or a writ
of ceTfi0rGri The privilege OF the latter, for the
protection OF property is the citizens right rs
the privilege of the former is his right. to pro-
tect his person. Now, what power can suspend
any OF these writsg Only legislative act. This
is ndisputable to all the writs except that it is
now disputed "a the single writ of habeas cor
ms Can he tpuf no of
maHdqmus2 No Why not! Nothing but
Legislature do it. Does the Constitution
p1Ohbit Il State Legislature from suspending the
writ of mandomus! No. Yet the right to sus
pend it exists with the other powers of the Legs-
ature. Now strike out OF the Constitution this
prohibition against SGSpending the writ of habeas
corpus, and what j. the eifectI Obviously the
Legislature or Congress could annul the writ of
habeaS corpus at any moment The constitutional
provision Is purely prohibitory.
lt would reem 10 he waste of words To show
10y further argument. that the power to suspend
the citizens right To certain writs known a. com
mon law wrtS) resides only in the legislature
ami that it does reside there unless prohibited by
the Constitution. Nor any possible distinction
be drawn between one OF these wrts and another
to the power of suspension We do not pause
to discuss the extent OF the power of Congress
and of State Legislatures over these writs Each
United States and the States. and the C0nstitu
ton OF the United States is supreme law to both
The strongest argument that has been ad
duced IN support OF the power Of the President
to suspend the privilege i that which is based on
the general power given to the President To take
care that the laws are faithfully executed. In
this and otEer general powers. it is argued that
the President l. authorized, when the laws can
not. in his Judgment bee faithfully executed other
HI. - 4 -
argument is faulty, in that il holds that to exc
cute one law, the President may violate another
But. aside from this, the argument proves too
much, Tor it authorizes the President To do any
despotic act Ii he could suspend the writ, on
such plea. he could equally well han "A pris-
Oner, on his own warrant The same answer ap-
plies TO all the arguments which have been used
10 justify the ieffTeS-de cdchet arrests Ii any
power existed to m he the arrests il also existed
10 execute the parties arrested without examina-
ton trial; and every attempt to justify these
arrests, necessarily argues full power in the Pres
ident. or Secretary State, decapltate any
suspected man in Vermont or Washington. \ ew
\ ork or Minnesota Ii one power exists, the
osher accompanies II; nor Is II possible To show
where a line Is To be drawn between the power to
arrest without warrant, GIN loyal State. wher,
there Is no actuai war and the power TO suspend
tie writ ct hdbeaS corpus. Md the power 10 order
the summary execution oil party who, IN the
judgment OF the President. was an obstacle to the
faithful prosecution of the war
" e do not dwell on this argument 1t is too
plain to need elucidation or illustration. The
justification OF the assumption OF any of these ar
bitrary powers by the President. is an argument
tor and justification OF a despotism unsurpassed
on the face OF the earth
la seeking for authorities on the subject it may
safely be affirmed thar, until the last summer 10
LAWYER doubted that the power To suspend the
prlvilcgeot the writ resided solely i'm Congress.
IL was we'll settled law We shall not now cite
the well known opinions OF distinguished jursts
which are indeed but dicfa, and yet entitled To
the highest respect But there i an authority
which. for the purposes OF citizens OF New York
State, must be regarded very high. ii not con
elusive on the point When We. a. a State &C
cepted and ratified the Constitution OF the United
States. in convention held at Poushkeep,e IN
liee We deemed it necessary To express very fu-
" our views oi the Interpretation to be put on
the Constitution We were mtifying The act OF
the convention had indeed no binding authority
- Law. except the extent of the single act and
deed OF ratIiying the Constitution, that the le-
clared opinions OF the convention are entitled 70
the highest respect hy Us who are the descend
ants OF the men that tneu placed on record for
our instruction and direction. their views in re-
gard 20 the great American instrument The
convention. 10 treating On the subject OF the writ
- ID.