Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1863-03-04
THE WRIT OF HABEAs CORPUS.
Can the President Suspend it

Can the President Suspend lit
The question, where, under the Ceastiz
sutton, tie power of snspeIding the writ
of ka6eds corpus is lodged, has of late
been widely and sometimes Unexpectedly
disclosed. Some OF. the ablest jurists of
the country disagree upon it. Many hold
that only Congress can suspend it; others
that ths President is properly vested with
the powell These opinions are not peco-
liar to any political party. Republicans
can be found who deny the Presidents
power TO suspend Democrats can be
found who assert that it is his right and
duty to suspend it. The question. is one
which can only be settled by defnitive
decision of the Supreme Court OF the
United States. to which doubtless all loyal
men, whatever naay be their own personal
views, must submit, while it remains the
decision of the highest judicial tribunal
OF the country.
The temporary suspension of this writ
by the President last year has been fruit
fui theme for demagegues in the North,
who are aiming to destroy the confidence
of the people of the loyal States in the
ministration, n order to weaken tie
cause of the Union and to promote the
cause of rebellion. 1t suits the purposes
OF these men TO denounce the act of the
President as clear, unquestionable, de-
liberate and willful infraction of the Con
stitution.
We subjoin some extracts from most
able speech by Senator FIELD, OF New
Jersey, made some weeks ago in the
United States Senate, in which he
takes the ground that the suspension of
the writ falls properly within the span of
the Presidents authority. To those who
feel an interest ia this important question !,
we commend the following: g
/ hold that the Constitution of the Uni :
ted States conters upor the President, and
not upon Congress, the power OF suspend !
ing the privilege of the writ Of ha5eas cor
pis; but it mistaken in this, hold that
Congress has no authority to delegate to
the President the exercise of such pow,
er. Mr.. President, the ninth section of
the first article of the Constitution OF the
United States provides, in effect that the
privilege of the writ of hdbeds corpus may
be suspended when, in case of rebellion or
invasion. the public safety may require it,
As to when the writ may be suspended,
there can be no doubt. The Constitution
has defined 1t wIthFits accustomed precis-
ion and accuracy. 1t is confined alto
gether TO cases OF rebellion or Invasion.
where he public safety may require it
But IN reference To the question By whom
that power is To be exercised, the Consti
tuition is not SO explicit. Here there is
room for doubt, and for differences of
opinion, and this is the question TO which
L now propose to call for few moments
the attention of the Senate.
fever there was an important question.
this ID one; for 1T touches upon the one
hand the liberty of the citizen, and upon
the other the Ills of the nation. 1t is too.
now question. 1t is case of the very
first impression. 1t has never been the
subject of judicial decision; nor, until
the breaking out of this rebellion had it
ever been the subject of legal discussion.
Neither the EaasslVe logic of a Marshall
nor the luminous pen Of Story had ever
been brought to bear upon it. Nor is
this, perhaps, to be wondered at; for, al.
though nearly fourscore years have elaps-
ed since the Constitution was adopted.
this is the very first occasion on which
there ever he's been any necessity to call
into existence the exercise OF this power
L an willing to admit that an impression
has very generally prevailed Among law
yers and judges that this power was leg
islative power, to be exercised by Congress
and not by the President; and L admit,
too, that the existence of such an impress
sion, creates presumption that such is
the true construction OF the Constitution
"a presumption which can only be over
come by very strong pr,ofs. But, sir, if
! sm not very much mistaken, those proofs
are TO be found. Why such an impression
should have prevailed, think it not very
difficult to understand. The truth is, that
We have derived not only the name of the
writ of hd6eas corpus, but all our ideas
concerning it, from England 1t is sin
gular fact, that at the time when this
clause was inserted in the Constitution,
the United States had no writ of hGbeas
corpus, and we never have had a ha6eas
corpus act passed by Congress to the pres
ent Gay. The only legislation that has
ever taken place in regard to it has been
this; Congress has conferred upon the
courts of the United States the power of
issuing the writ OF habeas corpus, leaving
everything else in connection with it to
depend upon the well known principles
of the common law. And because in Eng
land the writ OF ha6eas corpus can only be
suspended by Parliament, therefore the
conclusion has been very naturally come
to, that in this country the privilege of
the writ can only be suspended by Con-
gress.
Mr.. FIELD then goes on to show that
the English habeas corpus of Charles Ii.
was abscinte. admitting no exception 1t
contained no provision for suspension in
case of rebellion or invasion, and there
fore it followed that it could be annulled.
or suspended only by the power that Gre
sted 1.-THE parliament. But if it had
contained a provision for suspension il
such a case, it would have been evident
that the executive would have been the
proper authority to exercise the power OK
suspension. Thisis the difference between
the English hdbeds corpus and cur own.