The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1863-02-19


SPEECH OF HON. HENRY 8. LANE,
'-"' W. a' OF INDIANA, ~
On the Discharge Of State Prisoners.
DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED
STATES, DDcEMBEE Is, 1862. .s..fsr
The Senate having resumed the con
sderation Of the bill to provide for the
discharge of State prisoners and others,
and to authorize the judges, Of the Uni
ted States courts to take bail or rccog-
nzances to secure the trial Of the same,
Mr.. LANE said: ass. ...r.t.. H., .....
Mr.. PRESIDENT: The bill under, con-
sideration contemplates a provision for
the release Of political prisoners under
certain circumstances, and also to au-
thorize the President of the. United
States, under the condition Of the Con-
stitu'ion, to suspend the writ of haLeas
corpus Ifauy such Legislation be proper
and constitutional, the provisions Of the
bill seem aptly drawn to effect the object.
l believe, however, that no such legisla-
tion is either proper or constitutional:
that it is an improper Interference with
the duties and powers of the executive
office. 81 .. Is ..t II
[ shall attempt no finely drawn dis
tnctions upon this occasion between acts
ct the President Of the United States
which are justifab,e, and acts which are
excusabie. All the political arrests which
! the President Of the United States, in
the discharge of his sworn duties, has
made, l justify and defend, in the widest
and broadest sense Of that term. Nay,
more, | believe that the President, if he
had not made those arrests under the
circumstances under which they were
made, would have been unworthy Of the
high position he occupies, and recrean,
to his duty to the Constitution and the
country.
Mr.. President, in the few remarks
which | had the honor to submit to the
Senate at the extra session in ans r to
a Senator from Kentucky, the l4s5 ~
President Of the United Stat. 4
the position that the right al A. |||
suspend the privilege of t.
deas corpus was, by thA1
conGded to the PresiaSSA4g q Y q
States. The opinion tss 4vS+<s has
been strengthened by my = SesE1 E1nent re-
Election and investigation. At that time
but little had been said or written in this
country on the subject the public atten.
ton had not bccnT siircc,c.i CO. is-,a a>S~t
since then flood of light has been pour
ed upon it by the most brilliant living
!umiEaries in American Jurisprudence.
[ need on y to refer to Horace Binney,
Rcverdy Johhson and our present able
and distinguished Attorney General; all
Of whom most ably maintain that the
power to suspend the privilege of the
writ Of hoLeas corpus belongs, under tho
Constitution, to the President, and to
him alone. The ninth section Of the
FIRST article Of the Constitution expressly
states under what circumstances the
privilege Of the writ Of haJcas corpus
may be suspended, to wit: when, in cases
Of rebellion or invasion, the public safety
may require it without stating by whom
or by what department of the General
Government it was to be effected. This
we are left to infer from the nature of
the act to be performed, and from the
| duties assigned to and powers conferred
upon the different departments of the
Federal Government.
The privilege of the writ of haLeds cor.
p"s is personal right pertaining to the
individual 1t is the right to be bailcd
tried, or discharged without delay. The
denial or suspension Of this right is, in
my Judgment, an executive act, and is
not, under our Constitution, the proper
subject of legislative action. The bill
under consideration so regards it. The
bill does not propose to suspend this
privilege directly and by its own force,
but to confer power on the President to
do SO. Indeed, am utterly at loss to
conceive how Congress can directly exert
this power. They could only deny this
privilege to individuals by nane, or in
general terms. Congress by law might
enact that all persons charged with Ger
tain specified of1enses, for certain time
and within certain districts, should be
denied the privileges of the writ. That
would lead to inextrcable confusion, and
defeat the very object of this clause Of
the Constitution. Congress could not
specify all the persons to whom this priv
lege should be denied nor could they
specify all the otenses which might be
committed in aid Of the invasion or re-
bellion, or which might endaugor the
public safety. 1t is to avoid this very
difficulty that all the statutes passed by
the English Parliament on this subject
refer their execution to the king, or to
some Que of his ministers and the bill
now under consideration undertakes to
confer upon the President power which
Congress cannot, from its very nature,
ever execute. s..+. vr.4ts.
Now one of two things must be true:
Z Al