Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-07-20
THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE.
Important Opinion of Judge Frazier
he GRANTS THE WRIT AND ATTACHMENT
The maje-'y of the law vinaieatea.

The sIaJe-ty Of the Law vindieated.
The question before the court has been
argued By the counsel on both sides with
much earnestness and zeal, and NAV saw
with great learning and ability, and they
have been listened to by the court with deem
attention and interest, and doubtless the
court has been materially aided in coming to
a conclusion upon a subject involving not
only the liberty Of the citizen, but in some
degree the nicely balanced powers of the
several departments of the State Govern
ment
The writ Of habeas corpus has been looked
upon by the American people as one Of the
chief safeguards Of personal liberty, and by
the Constitution and laws of this State, It
may be demanded by every citizen as a
matter OF right; and in court is permitted
TO refuse 1t in any case, except where the ap-
plicant Is detained by the process of the
court as the United States, or when the ap-
plicants petition shows no grounds upon
which, by law, reliefcould be granted upon
the hearing Of the application, if il is mani
fest to the court that the applicant is illegal
ly restrained of his liberty, the court is
bound to discharge him; but if it appears
that he is legally restrained, the writ should
be discharged. The petition in this case
substantially alleged, that the petitioner,
pleasant WILLIAMS, is a citizen of this
State; that he is a member of the Represen-
tative branch Of the Tennessee Legislature;
that on the 2Sth of May last said
Legislature adjourned, to meet again
on the first Monday Of November next !;
that since said adjournment, the Governor,
by proclamation, has convened, or attempted
to convene said Legislature; that no quo
rum had been obtained in the House, and
that less than a quorum Of the House had
passed a resolution authorizing the defend
ant, HEYDT, as Sergeant-at-Arms, to bring
petitioner, with other absent members, to the
House of Representatives, to answer for
their disorderly conduct and contempt; that
under said resolution the defendants, HEYDT
and FRAMES, arrested petitioner, carried him
from his home, in Carter county, to Nash
vile, where they now hold him a prisoner;
that said arrest and Imprisonment is illegal,
and prays TO be released. Upon the petition
a writ was executed on the defendant, HEYDT,
requiring him to bring the petitioner, with
the cause of his detention, before the court;
and to this writ the defendant, HEYDT, by
his attorney, and without producing the
body of the petitioner, presented his return
which, in substance, states, "That by virtue
of resolution Of the House of Represent
atives, directed to him, as Sergeant-at-Ar
to bring the petitioner, with other absent
members, to the House, and a warrant Is
sued thereon by the Speaker, he had arrest
ed the petitioner, and brought him to Nash
10 and fhsa of ,fafa nd
that since the service Of said writ, said
House of Representatives had passed anoth-
er resolution directing him to keep the pris-
oner, and not produce him to the court as
required by said order.
The necessity of the production of the
prisoner in court, as an indispensable part of
the return, being waived for the present, let
US proceed TO inquire whether theresolutions
of the House Of Representatives and the
warrant of the Speaker, as alledged in the
return, is a legal and sufficient authority to
the defendant, HEYDT, for the arrest and de-
tention Of the prisoner. In examining this
question the court has been sensibly i'm
pressed with the delicacy of its position, and
the magnitude of the issue involved. The
decision CT the question in either way has
been represented by counsel as involving
the most serious consequences, not only to
the whole country, but even to the court it.
self Whatever the consequences of the de-
cision may be, they have had, and can have
no influence on the mind of the court, ex-
cept SO far as they may have tended to aid in
the proper construction Of the law involved
in the question. The legal existence of the
present State Government and its several CO.
ordinate departments is not denied neither
Il. E Io IN,
convene the Legislature in extraordinary
session, by his late proclamation, seriously
controverted But it is insisted by the
counsel for petitioner, that as he is a men,
Der Of the Legislature, by virtue of the 18th
section Of the ID article of the Constitution
of the State, he is absolutely privileged
from arrest, during the session Of the Legis-
lature, and whilst going to and returning
from the same; and hence his arrest and de-
tention is illegal and void, being in direct
violation Of an express provision of the
Constitution.
From the 18th section of the same article
of the Constitution, it will be Jeen that the
Legislature, when duly organized, and a suf-
fcient number present to transact business,
had the power to determine the rules of its
proceedings and punish its members for dis
orderly behavior, and from the construction
given by Congress 10 a provision of the Con-
stitution of the United States, nearly similar
in language to the said 18th section Of the
2d article Of the Constitution of this State,
as shown and declared by the Seth rule
adopted by the House of Representative for
their Government, it seems clear that this
or exemption from arrest was in
tended only to protect the member from ar
rest by other persons or authorities, outside
of and disconnected with the Legislature
itself; and the Legislature when duly assem-
bled and qualified TO transact their regular
business, could arrest lawfully any one Of its
members for disorderly conduct. But il is
further insisted, that the House Of Repre-
eentatives has never been organized under
the proclamation of the Governor, or at least
that it never has had a quorum or a sutfi-
cient number Of its members present to
transact any business, except to adjourn from
day TO day, and that the resolution under
which the petitioner was arrested was passed
by less than quorum, and is void and can
afford no protection to the defendant.
In answer TO this it is insisted by the
counsel for the defendants that the court has
no jurisdiction or right to enquire into, or
decide upon the acts Of the Legislature, and
particularly when these acts are IN relation
to one Of its own members; that such action
of the court would produce a conflict be-
tween the legislative and judicial depart
ments of the Government, 1t is cheerfully
and readily conceded that the courts have no
right or authority to interfere with the Leg
islature in the regulation of its members,
or the punishment Of its members, in any
manner they may see fit, when it is once or
ganized as a legislative body and it is there
fore admitted that it is always a delicate
and unpleasant task for the court to decide
any law, resolution, or any other act of the
Legislature to be in conflict with the Con-
stitution, and, therefore, was veid, and
should never be done but upon the
most satisfactory conviction Of the il
legality Of the acts. But, surely, it can
not be denied that from the very or
ganization of the several departments
of government, that it must often become
necessary for the judicial to determine the
validity of the acts Of the Legislature. This
is one Of the balances Of power, so wisely
provided by the Constitution. The legis-
iative department is governed by law, as
well as the judicial; and it can pass no law
or resolution not authorized by the Constitu-
ton in express terms, or by reasonable and
......-..,-- ,,y,.,-f -t9atfn, innuanpn The