The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1867-01-07
'~DAILY ARGUS.
- This paper has the largest circulation of
in the county, and is tho official paper for the
It Office and City Council.
is. oAHFoArH, "a, sprroA
pnday Evening. ....s, ..JHnuoIS -
Ilegality of Military
Commissions to try a
Civilians.
ECISION IN THE INDIANA C0NSPIRA-
j. CT CASES,
Official Report.
JPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
Official Report.
JPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
No. 350.-DEcEMBER TERN, 1865.

y, STATES.
~ 4 No. 350.-DECEMBER TERN, 1865.
q ;, ,parte in matter of Lambdin p. Miiligdn,
rE petitioner. On a certificate of dirision OF
. opinion 5etueen the judges of the Circuit
iiis Court of the United States for the District
- Of Indiana. ,c,.;nr.,,
Again, in Cohsns vs.VirgInia,( &c Wheaton,)
II says: "In law language a suit Is the pros
CT ution of some demand in a court of JUS
P So" Also, ''to commence suit is TO de-
!, 90 and something by the institution of process
: Ii court of justice and to prosecute suit
Id to continre that demand" When Milligsn
Dab msndsd his release by the proceeding rslas-
tt 2 to haheas corpus he commenced = suit,
WI d he has since prosecuted it in all the ways
II iown TO law. One of the questions in
hi dimes Vs. Jennison IA Petsrs) was, whsth.
ih under the 25sh section of the judiciary act
b. proceeding for writ of habeas corpus was
Of E'suis" Chief Justice fancy held that, ''if
in party is unlawfully imprisoned, the writ OF
-ss IDEAS corpus is his appropriate legal reme-
,. ID his suit In court TO recover liberty.
. h aere was much diversity of opinion on
q. her ground of jurisdiction, but on this, that
ID the sense of the 18th section of the judo
teot ~ ct,shs proceeding by habsss corpus was
a suit, was not controvsrted by any except
p, aid win, Justics, and ne thought that ''suis"
20 I'd "oause," as used in the section mean the
p me thing.
'ae' The court do not say that q return must be
- ade, and the parties appear and begin TO
| 81 Y the case before it is suit. When the pc
e lion is filed and the writ prayed for, it is
p 1.-THE suit of the party making the appli-
! pll .sion. If it is suit under the 18th section
z. the judiciary act, whom the proceedings
Ii 9 begun, it is, by all the analogies of the
'lsu W, equally q suit under the 9th section of
j lpi 10 act of 1902.
4 10 But il is argued that there must be tUo
lrties to the suit, because the point is to be
,,.D atsd upon the request Of ''either party or
.Ti,h teir council" Such literal and technical
s.x instruction would defeat the very purpose
tFn 10 Legislature had in view, which was to en-
;, Die any party TO bring the case here, when
0 az 10 point in controversy was matter of right
FRI Id not of discretion and the words "sither
. q arty,' in order to prevent failure of JUS
,est &c, must he construed as words of enlarge
-rsi emit, and not of restrlcattoa. Although the
l. u sss Is here parte, it was not considered by
. % 10 court below without notice having been
r!rs ven to the party supposed to have an inter
\ II in the detention of the prisoner. The
p stements of the record show that this is not
81 ally fair, but conclusive inference. When
ira'ie counsel for Milligan presented to the
- jurt the petition for the writ of habsas cor
"a Is, Mr.. Hanna, the district attorney for In
ana, also appeared; and, By agreement, the
duplication was submitted to the court, who
@S& ok the case under advissmsnt, and ON the
l 'xt day announced their inability to agree,
I'd made the certificate. Ii is clear that MIR
anna did not represent the petitioner, and
"hY Is his appearance entered? Il admits Of
q 'othersolution sh an this--that he was inform
a OF the application, and appeared on behalf
the government to contest il. The s"ve-a-
sent was the prosecutor OF Milligsn. who
4 oaimsd shas his imprisonment was illegal,
d sought, in the only way he could to re-
o' YER HE liberty. The case was grave one;
rs court, unquestionsbly. directed that the
uw officer OF the government should be in
= :, rmed of it. He very properly appeared,
d as the facts were unoontrovsrted and the
houlty was in the application of the law,
y ere was no useful purpose to be obtained in
y suing the writ. The cause was, therefore,
. omitted to the court for their consideration
ID determination. But Milligan claimed
!: discharge from custody by virtue of the
r. = of congress relating to haheas corpus,
i.,a regulating judicial proceedings in certain
a.. ses," approved March 3, 1863. Did that
u" confer Jurisdiction on the circuit court of
= diana to hear this case In Interpreting
o law the motives which must have operat-
80: with the legislature in passing it are prop
o. to be considered. This law was passed 10
u. time of great national peril, when our her.
mlge OF tree government was in danger. An
AZ, med rebellion against the national Ruthori-
IA OF greater proportions than history eff
H. IDS an example, was raging and the public
q; fety required that the privilege of the writ
y, hsbeas corpus should be suspended. The
~, ssident had practically suspended it, and
VI tanned suspected persons in custody with
o. trial; but his authority to 90 this was
q lestloned. Il was claimed that ongress
-, one could exercise this power, and that the
7 legislature, and not the President, should
g. dge of the political considerations on which
. ;e right to suspend it rested. The privilege
~, this great writ had never before been with
Z ,,ld from the citizen and, as tho exigence of
ne times demanded Immediate action, il was
the highest Importance that the lewfulness
~; she suspension should be fully established.
t5I was under these circumstances, which were
hi ca as to arrest the attention of the country
at this lew was passed. The President
/ y as authorised by 1t TO suspend the privilege
+ HI the writ of habeas corpus whenever, in his
/ Judgement, the public safety required; and
/ li' did by proclamation, bearing date the 18th
ts, September, 1868, reclting among other
!, ings the authority of this statute, suspend
IL The suspension of the writ does not au-
lsroIorize the arrest of any one, but simply de-
-, es to one arres ed the privilege of this writ
I ii order to obtain his liberty
/ ~ 1t ls proper, therefore, to inquire under
5uhst CIRCUMSTANCES the courts could rightfully
| itifuse to grant this writ, and when tie cit-
| .,i'n was at liberty to invoke its aid.
| 6, The second and third sections of the law
ale explicit on these points. The language
jed Is plain and direct, and the meaning of
sA'ngress cannot be mistaken The public
stety demanded, if the President thought
,'oper to arrest a suspected person, that he
,iouid not be required to give the cause of
tis detention on return to writ of habeag
d'rpus. But it was not contemplated that
loh person should be deta ned in custody he.
ond certain fixed period, unless certain in.
4 bcial proceedings known to the common law
itere commenced against him. The ascra,s.
1 les of state and war were .direeted 10 far.
Dish to the judges of the United States a l,.,
{ the names of ell parties, not prisoners Of
har, resident in their respective jurisdio.;ors
Sho then were or afterwards should he baId
d custody by the authority of the President
| tad who were citizens in which the administra,
/ BON of the laws in the federal tribunals wera
| balm paired. After the list was furnished If
| Agrand jury Of the district convened and ad.
turned. and did not indict or present one of
/ tie persons thus named he was entitled IN