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

Constitution OF he does not. If he al
ready possesses it the bill before us is
idle and void. If he does not possess it
the bill, if passed, would not confer it
upon him, for an act of Congress cannot
enlarge or abridge tho powers of the
President.
This power cannot be exercised con.
jointly by the President and Congress.
Their functions are separate and distinct.
The exercise of this power under the
Constitution implies that the department
exercising it has cognizance OF the fact
that invasion OF rebellion exists, and the
further fact that the public safety de.
mands its exercise. The bill before us
leaves its execution to the President -
His discretion is appealed to. He de-
termines the time when the public safety
requires the execution Of the law, wheth.
er rebellion or invasion exists; in fact,
he does under this bill precisely what, in
my Judgment, he has full authority to DO
under tho Constitution cf the United
States.
An argument is drawn against the
right of the President to exercise this
power from the assumed fact that the
provision in reference to the writ Of Ia
teas corpus occurs in the ninth section
Of the first article of the Constitution,
containing only restrictions upon the
power of Congress and referring to lcgis.
lativc matters alone. 1t will be seen bv
reading that section that there are two
clauses in it directly limiting the power
Of the IrcsIden'--tirst, in relation to
} drawing money from the treasury; ard,
} secondly, in reference to titles of nobili-
ty. If there are two clauses in the sec
} tlon which do not and canuot by any
possibility apply to the powers of Con-
gress, why may not a third exist? 1--WE
can derive but slight aid in cur interpre-
tation Of the Constitution by looking to
the place in that instrument where any
clause is inserted :" for it is known to all
that after the Constitution was agreet,
7 upon in convention, committee was d, u
1 pointed on style and arrangement. (Stht
eE!liot's Debates, 295 Their duy1
we're to arrange the articles and rQc11
the style. Their arrangement was,l
haps, as good as any other, ~ M -
almost every article aud o. LAX
together provisions o. dilt Is,
and pertaining - :,
of the General Govs7k 3,, Ind
The hoJeas corpus cli " =. 1
ed by Governeur Morr sSxs.. ~
by the convention Is ~ 2Ss ~
and part of the fouflk y
eleventh article Of th6
! (See EIliott's Debates, 10 I, &
tion had reference solely n
power of the United SlSg11 =
the argument drawn from nsfe ~ ~ II
is good for anything it would PROVE thu
this power is to be exercised by 6fe juH:.y
cary, because it originally occurred in
section regulating the power of the judi
cary. No one believes that. That pro-
position would involve the absurdity of
requiring judge to issue a writ for the
purpose Of disobeying it himself
The history of the action of the Fed
eral convention on the subject of the
habeas corpus clause shows to my mind,
most conclusively, that the convention
did not grant and did not intend to grant
to Congress the power to suspend the
privilege of the writ. We find from e.
lots debates that the shape in which
this matter was first presented to the
convention by Gen. Pinckrey was this:
"The Legislature shall pass no law on
the subject Of religion, nor touching nor
abrdgirg the liberty of the press, nor
shall the privilege of Aa1eos corpus ever
be abridged, except in case of rebellion
or INVASION"
Again, Gen, Pinckncs moved in con-
yeution the following:
"The privileges and benefits Of the
writ of haJcas corpus shall be enjoyed in
this Government in the most expeditions
manner, and shall not be suspended by
the Legislature except on the most ur-
gent occasions, and for limited time"
In both these clauses it will be seen
that the word ''legislature" was used
Beth these propositions failed, and the
clause as it now stands was inserted, III
which no reference is made to Congress
or the Legislature; aud gentlemen still
contend this power is conferred upon
i Congress. Inc convention lciuSeu 10
confer this power upon Congress when
the proposition was plainly presented;
and do you suppose they intended by
their silence to do that which they bad
positively refused to do by their votes?
"There is another class Of arguments
based upon the analogy of the British
constitution to our own. These argu-
meats, although plausible and specious,
are nevertheless fallacous." We are
told, first, that we derive our laws and
Institutions mainly from England; that
the writ of habeas corpus ad sutytciendum
was a well known English writ, and that
the trainers Of the Constitution had that
writ in view when the clause under dis
cussion was placed in the Constitution.
60 far this doubtless ia all true Then