Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1863-03-05
THE WRIT OF HABEAs CORPUS.
Can the President suspend it Z

The question, where, under the Consti
tuition, the power of suspeIding the writ
of ha5eas corpus is lodged, has of late
been widely and sometimes Unexpectedly
discussed. Some of the ablest iurists OF
the country disagree upon it. Many hold
that only Congress can suspend it others
that the President is properly vested with
the power. These opinions are not pecu-
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 may 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
full theme for demagogues in the North.
who are aiming to destroy the confidence
OF the people of the loyal States in the
Administration, in order to weaken the
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-
will nj inf
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 in this important question,
we commend the following:
| hold that the Constitution of the Uni
ted States confers upon the President, and
not upon Congress, the power of suspend
ing the privilege of the writ of ha6eas cor
pus; but if mistaken in this, | hold that
Congress has no authority to delegate to
the President the exercise of such pow>
or. MIR. 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 ha6eas 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 with its 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 6y 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 a few moments
the attention of the Senate.
II ever there was an important question.
this 10 one; for it touches upon the one
hand the liberty of the citizen, and upon
the other the life of the nation. 1t ia too
new question. 1t is a case of the very
first impression. Ii 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 massive 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 hss been any necessity to call
into existence the exercise OF this power.
am willing to admit that an impression
w lnH L.,
yers and judges that this power was leg
islative power, to be exercised by Congress
and not by the President; and [ 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 proofs. But, sir, if
| am 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 habeas 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 ha6eas
corpus, and we never have had a ha6eas
corpus act passed by Congress to the pres
ent day. 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 hdbeds 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 absolute, admitting no exception. 1t
contained no provision for suspension in
ease of rebellion or invasion, and there
fore it followed that it could be annulled.
or suspended only by the power that Gre
ated 1.-THE parliament. But if it had
contained a provision for suspension il
such case, it would have been evident
that the executive would have been the
proper authority to exercise the power Of
suspension. This is the difference between
the English ha6eas corpus and our own.
The natural conclusion is that the Execu.
tive is the legal authority to suspend it :;
and notwithstanding the want of proyis.
ion for suspending the English writ, it was
hr in ho