Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1864-08-30
OPINION OF JUDGE PEARSON.
HABsAs coRPUs-RUssELL VS.. WHITING.
ICONCLUDED.1

CONCLUDED.
One who is familiar with the expressions which
preceded and caused the passage of the act of 81
On. 3 and also with the legislation which in En-
gland is popularity, termed the suspension of the
= act since its passage up to the formation OF the
FEDERAL Constitution, and the occasions which pro-
duced those suspensions can be at no loss to cor.
lecture why the trainers of that instrument limited
the power of suspension by Congress to the times
OF rebellion or invasion, and why the suspension
cannot be supposed to embrace any other than
"criminal or supposed criminal matters" A brief
reference to the disturbed times in England between
the period of passing the act Q679) and 1857 and
to the mode suspending it, will explain it ALL
In 1868 James II fed the kingdom without any
purpose of abandoning the throne and, though
abroad, continued, he and his male ISSUE SO long
IS any of them survived, to claim the crown, not
withs;anding Immediately after his departure it
WIS settled on another branch Of the family. The
claims of the excluded family continued until -.
During this period of rivalry for the throne, En-
gland subject to rebellions within, aided often
by concurrent inyasons from without melted by
James and Rs descendants At several times the
preparations for overthrowing the dynasty were
Iormidaole and alarming On such occasions the
Parliament passed laws which abrogated temporari
ly certain rig hts of the subject secured to him main
~ under the hd6eas corpus act of Charles The
first was enacted in the first year of W. and
ii g, and during their reign aud that of William I'LL
"a period of twelve years-hVe acts OF this kind
passed. Their titles were to empower the King
either to "apprehend and detain" or ' to commit
without bail, such persons as he shall find Just
cause to suspect are cOnspiring against the gov
eminent" From thence to- the close of this strug-
gle for the throne there passed five acts
in each of the years 17l4-1715-1722-
I744-1746. The titles of all are. in the same
words and of each it is ian act to empower his
rsajesty to secure and detain such persons az his
Oh 15ri,,o
person and government" The next in point OF
time was that of 1777, noticed in Hurd, 1872, which
denied the privileges of the ha6eaS corpus act OF
Charles only Ito Iefsons tGken in the act of high
treason committed in any of the colonies or on the
Egh OF in the act of piracy, or who were charg
I'll with or suspected of any of those crimes -
There others to be found on the British Stat
utes till after the adoption Of the Federal Constr
Iltlon. Those passed IN 1874 and thence till the
close of the revolutionary struggle in France, sew
elal il number, bear the same titles as those of
and after l7l4; two of them ofextreme dates, 1859
end 1794-are set forth as perfect samples of them
all.
A consideration of the provisions of these acts
will establish the second proposition that the pO,0-
e. to suspend the pTiUileye of the s0rit" carries
soih it no poaoer other than simply to deny the ben"
cit Of the aora and subject the party to inprsOn-
alent as its only attendant consequence.
Each Of these acts was popularity termed "sus-
pension of the ha6edsc0rpus act" (Campbels life Of
Lord Mansfield, and parliamentary debates of 1794.)
This was their popular name, because they denied
TO the accused persons arrested Upon q charge of
the crimes mentioned, the privilege secured by the
act of Charles But the denial of this privilege
did not constitute all that a0Gs proUiCLed by these
tIets.
First, they enacted that all persons who on a
Certain day, casually the day of giving the royal
assent to the act) should be imprisoned within the
Kingdom, ard all who, after that day, should be
imprisoned, fer high treason, suspicion of treason
or reasonable practices, by warrant signed by six
of the privy council or by any of the principal Sec
retares Of State, may be detained in custody with
out bail or main prize until certain day, (the day
when the Get to expire,) This UdS a suspen-
sion Of The pririLege Of The crit
Secondly, it was enacted that no Judge or Justice
of the peace should try such person committed
without an order signed by six of the privy coun-
ell, until the day when the act expired-any law
to the contrary Notwithstanding. This de.
NAL of trial
Th1dty it was provided that after the day when
the act should expire, all persons so imprisoned
should have the benefit and advantage of the ha6s-
as corpus act Of 81 Charles 2.
And, lastly, it was provided that the act should
not extend To the imprisOnng or OBTAINING of any
member Of either House of Parliament until the
matter of which he might be suspected should be
first communicated to the House of which he was
member, aud the consent of the said Hause ob-
tanned for commitment or OBTAINING. Vide vol.
Stat. of the Realm, l. W. and L., ch. 7, IL Universe
y Lib. Chapel Hill King vs. DesPard T. r 1872
BAG Abr. hab. Csrp. note to p 730.
mus It is seen that the first provision was TO de-
ny the prisoner ba-this deprived him vi the priv