Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-09-28

First-The e~xaction of money under the name
of loans.
SecCnd-The commitment Of those who re-
fused compliance and the late decision Of the
Cing's Bench, REMINDING them on habeas corpus.
Third-The billetiDg of soldiers on private
persons, for convenience or for intimidation or
annoyance.
Professionalism to try offenders by mar
tial law. sskA* al
The people of England were profoundly agita-
ted. They were determined that the King
should be compelled by a signal act. to recog-
nize those sacred rights for which their ances-
tors had successfully commended, and which were
handed down to them as their prescriptive fran
chises.
In this great act there was no equivocation.
In regard to personal liberty, after reciting the
provision of Magma Charta and the act of Ed
ward III, to which | have referred, whereby it
was declared that no man, of whatever state or
condition, should be injured in any wise, or
imprisoned. without being brought to answer by
due process of law. 1t holds the following Lam
guage:
"V. Nevertheless, against the tenor of the said
statutes, and other the good laws and statutes
of your realm to that end provided, divers of
your subjects have been of late imprisoned with
out any cause showed, and when for their deliv-
erance they were brought before justice, by your
Majesty's writs of habeas corpus, there to under
60 and receive as the courts should order, and
their keepers ordered to certify the causes of
their detainer, no cause was certified but that
they were detained by your Majesty's special
command, signi6ed by the Lords of your Privy
Council. and yet were returned back to several
prisoners without being charged with any thing
TO which they might make answer according to
law"
1t is thus, gentlemen, that the history Of the
despotism of Charles | is repeating itself under
the administration of Abraham Lincoln. There
is, in the first place. the illegal and unconstita-
tional exercise of Executive authority, the exer-
else of the power of discretionary Imprisonment,
without legal warrant, and the refusal OF a servile
or intimidated court to release upon habeas
corpus.
Let us low see what the Commons of Eng
land demanded and what they received in this
crisis of the cause of constitutional liberty; per-
haps we may derive encouragement as well as
instruction from their manly and patriotic con-
duct.
They demanded. in Parliament, that no free
man, in any such manner as is before mentioned,
be imprisoned or detained; n . : that the
aforesaid commissions, for proceeding by martial
law, NAV be revoked and annulled. and that here
after no commissions of like nature may issue
forth to any person or persons whatsoever, to be
executed as aforesaid"
To this celebrated Petition Of Right the King
was constrained to yield his assent. 1t was CALI
GU 81 HttlAiOh VI iiEbt dc imBt1inS udA ~ OOh-
tanned only a corrobOrrtion or explanation of the
ancient constitution, and not any infringement of
royal prerOgatiye, or acquisition of new liberties.
As | have said. gentlemen, this monument of
English liberty was established in the year 1927;
aud now, to show you that its guarantee of per
sonal security was regarded as a birthright of
Englishmen, / will call your attention to the
provisions of a code or system of law established
by the British colonists in Massachusetts,, in the
year l64l
This remarkable code l have in my hand, and
it is called
THE MASSACHUSETTS BODY OF LIBERTIES.
This document embraces ninety eight sections,
the very first one of which reads as follows:
Il. No mans life shall he taken away; no
mans honnr, or god name. shall be stained; no
mans person shall be arrested, restrained, ban
ished or dismembered
under color of law or conntenance of authority,
unless it be by virtue or equity of some express
law warranting the same, established by a general
court sufficiently published" &c.
At this period. n severe struggle was in pro-
gress between Charles | and the English Com
mons. That monarch. by the pertinacity of his
efforts to trample down the chartered liberties of
his people, at length received the punishment due
his crimes, and suffered death on the block in the
year 1913. The Commonwealth under Cromwell
and his son Richard followed, and the House of
Stuart was restored to the throne afterward. in
the person of Oh 'rles III.
1t was during the reign of this King. in the
year 1919, that the celebrated statute was passed,
entitled
THE HABEAs CORPUS ACT.
In reference to this act Mr. Hallam says that
"Iti Is a very common mistake among English
men, as well as foreigners. to suppose that this
statute enlarged in a great degree our liberties.
and forms "A sort Of epoch in their history. But
though a very beneficial enactment, and eminent
ly remedial in many cases of Illegal imprisonment,
il introduced no new principle, nor conferred anv
right upon the subject. From the earliest records
of the English law. no freeman could be detained
in prison, except upon a criminal charge or con
victiOn, or for a civil debt. In the former case,
it was always in his power to demand of the Court
of Kings Bench a writ ofhabels corpus. directed
to the person detaining him in custody. by which
he WAS enioined to bring mp the body of the pris-
oner, with the warrant of commitment, that the
court might judge of its suficiency and remand
the party, admit him to bail. or discharge him
according TO the nature of the charge. The writ
issued of right, and could not be refused by the
court. IL was not to besIow an humanity from
arbitrary imprisonment (which is abuniantlv pro-
vided in Magma Chirta, if indeed it were not
much more ancient), but TO cut off the abuses by
which the Governments lust of power, and the
servile suhIlety Of the Crown lawyers, had i'm
paired so funian entail privilege"
This extract sufficiently explains the object of
that celebrated statute. Immunity from arbitra
; nv imprisonment was regarded as a right, con-
corning which there could be no dispute-and
when the line of succession was afterward broken
nv the abdicition of James III, and William and
Mary called to the throne IN the year 1858. this,
together with all the other ancient rights and
liberties of the English people. was again con-
frmed 70 them bv a written instrument. which
called a new dyn tsty to the throne, denomiuated
the
Il BILL or RIGHTS.
This document was prepared by a committee,
of which Lord Somers, afterward Lord Chancel-
Tor, was Chsirmin The new Sovereign was
made distinctly To understand that the Crown
was held by act of p ,rli,ment aad not BY indie
? feasible and divine right, and that he was called
to the throne expressly to maintain those ancient
liberties of the people. by violating which his pre-
decessors OF the House OF Stuart had lost it.
i have thus shown you, gentlemen. by these
copious references to English history. that from
the most ancient { ime the exemption ola subject
Of the British Grown from arbitrary arrest and
r Imprisonment has been regarded as a sacred and
: never to be-surrendered right. 1t was first dis
/ tinctly asserted in that most ancient relic of the
, documentary history Of English liberty, Magma
Charta, in l2l5-confirmed afterward in 1897,
guarded by the Statute of Treason in 1850. again
; asserted in the Petition of Right in 1927. recog-
nized in the Massachusetts, Body Of Liberties in
> i64l: again protected in England by the habeas
corpus act of Charles the second in 1879, and
confirmed again by the Bill Of Rights in 1858. an
I act declaring the rights and liberties of the sub
iect, and settling the succession of the Grown
1t must not be supposed. however, that this
|, sacred right remained during these successive pc
RODS uninfringed by despotic power. On the