Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1864-08-30

ton of the act of Charles (9th of our R. O. Oh 5o)
which allowed him to demand trial and If upon
| prayer made, on the first week of the term AFTER
his commitment to be brought to trial he we're not
indicted some time in the next term after his com
mittent then on motion the last day OF that term
he was entitled to be discharged on ball. unless the
witnesses for the King could not be found and II
he were not indicted and tried the second term then
he was entitled to be Internationally discharged
4 The British Act, therefore, after abrogatng' the
right TO the privilege of the writ proceeded to an
null the 7th section of the act of Charles, which Sc
| cured speedy trial. (Bac. Abr. Hab Corp. b 4,
note on page 1907 1t is apparent, then, that IN
England the simple suspension OF the privilege :oi
| the writ wholly disconnected with the rfgnt Oh
trial There are some privileges secured by the act
of Charles which distinct from those pertaining
to the writ of habeds corpus at common law these
are secured by legislation If the entire act, as a.
class of criminals, were repealed temporarily all
these privileges would of course cease to exist and
the common law privileges incident to the writ
would alone be in force But such repeal would
not affect the speedy trial secured by the 47th Sec
| ton of Magma Charta ave will sell to no man,
! we will deny no man, or defer right or justice.
which Lord Coke says is being repeated by the
King all his So the suspension OF the COM
mon law writ cannot, of ITSELF affect this provision
of MagAa Charta 1t requires the authority OF Par
| liSment to do it and if omitted by Parliament the
| judges must, in the language of Sir Edward Coke
and Sir William Blackstone the great commentators
| of Englisi law, proc ed with the trial "speedl.
| ly and without delay" q Inst Dol BL Com.
i41.
1t is manifest that the privileges of the ha0ead
corpus act of Charles, as to persons arrested for
crime or supposed crime embrace all the privileges
| of the writ at common law, and secure and define
others besides The 7th section of the act does not
| aDnul the 47th section of M.gna Churta but con-
firms it and defines some extent, as to unbail
able crimes, what speed of trial prisoner is entitled
to. 1t would not answer the purpose of suspension
| in England to repeal suspend for time the en-
tire act of Charles for that would leave in full force
| and Vigor the common law writ to bailable Of
l FENCES and the provision in Magma Charta, FOR
speedy trial. as TO those unbailabe Therefore, the
Of suspension strikes at the writ, whether exis
ting at common law or regulated by statute and
moreover Suspends the 7th sec on of the statute,
and the 47th of Magma Charta, both of which are
! done by an express denial of trial. The popular
! name given to the legislation in England, "suspen
sion of the act of habeas corpus" expresses not
| half its effects.
If the constitutional power to suspend the priv
lege of the writ intended to confer Congress
the entire authority possessed and exercised by the
Parliament before the adoption of the Constitution
Of 1885, the statutes passed those occasions must
| be the expostors of the nature and extent Rf the
grant. These guides would, the one hand, first,
confine the suspension to crime Only-secOpdly t.
the crimes of treason suspicion of treason and urea
sonable practices-and, thirdly, would require the
process for arrest to be special warrant signed by
the President or Secretary of State, naming the per
son and the Otfense; and on the other hand, would
invest Congress with the power to deny trial for
so long time as the act might last, unless the
President sooner consent to it
If these statutes of England, however be not the
true expositors. of the nature and extent of the
power granted By the Constitution, then We must
look to the guides afforded US elsewhere. The only
Legislative guide among ourselves is found in the
bill, which passed the Senate of the United States
in 1907. That, however, requiring both an oath
and special warrent to precede the arrest, simply
denied to the prisoner "the privilege of the writ
of habeds corpus" leaving underlined what that
privilege was. There is in it however, no prohibit
ton against speedy trial. in the British acts
yet the privilege is declared to be suspended for
three mouths, thus showing in the clearest manner
the opinion of the President, Jefferson, and Very
able Senate that the privilege of the writ might be
suspended in the very language of the constitution
without dispensing with oath or warrant or pro-
hibiting speedy trial There were in the bill no
details; the prisoner was to be deprived of the
privilege of the writ, which the blll substantially
attrms he may be, and yet not lose e-bene6t of
single guard of the constitution but have the full
protection of all If this bill was an exercise of
the granted power (and it must be taken to have
been intended by its supporters by their using
the very language of the cOnstitutOn) it tends to
define the privilege of the writ and rejects all that
latitude of construction which would bring the
clause into conflict with other constitutional pro-
visions guaranteeing personal rights. If that bill
vas full exercise Of the power granted land it can
be less for the enactment is in the very language
of the constituion) the power invoke no other
power to render the suspension of the writ more
terriOle-nor, above all, it PROSTATE, for that
purpose, distinct guard of personal freedom. 1t
is apparent that the late act is neither English nor
American in its character but altogether SUI gen.
eris 1t assumes against the entire history of legis
lativ 6nnfa h0fh osHa of fha n
suspend the privilege of the writ for other than
criminal purposes; and it dares against the practice
Of both; to arrest on general warrants.
In England the practice in cases of suspension
has been invariably to require special warrant
Rex v Despard z, T. R. 1872, f. Bl. Com 291, n k.
The British acts secure the privileges of the men,
bers of Parliament, against the force of an act
which did not except the members. This makesn 10
exception of any one. In England amember arrest
ed by order ofthe council would be entitled to have
his release at through the writ unless the house
should surrender him. But under this act the Pres
ident Secretary of State may annihate the entire
Congress- or allow it much Ofitas he may please
to exist Such clause of exception is necessary
in England to secure the ancient privileges Of Par
Lament, because of the Omnipotence of that body
There is no doubt that the why, in the bill
of 1907, no such clause of exception was inserted
is that the Congress deemed the members to be
protected by the constitution from arrest for other
causes than are therein set forth.
The power to suspend the privilege of the writ
the provision that person should be- deprived Of
his liberty without due process of law, which is
declared to be warrant issued on probable cause,
supported by oSth and particularly describing the
person to be arrested and the guaranty ola speedy
trial. all distinct constitutional provisions, and
occupy each one the same prominence and the same
independence of each other, in the constitution.
Neither of them is q provjso or qualification to
any other-each has the sam constitutional status
Any one of them can exist without the other, and
all exist together and in harmony. If the bill
of 1907 had become law the vigor of none Of these
provisions would have suffered the slightest impair