Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-01-13
THE HLBE4S CORPUS.

If Tue pending dispute as to the legal
rights of Samuel Frank shall have no OTHER
result, We trust it will settle one or two
mooted points of law that are of interest and
Importance to the whole people. First and
foremost, and the question which is of the
greatest Importance to the people at large, is
one which has never as yet been aijudicated
upon, as far as our knowledge goes-the
comprehensiveness of the writ of habeas cor
pas. It has heretofore been held that the
effect of the writ is circumscribed by State
or county boundaries; that writ issued in
Minnesota is of no effect in Wisconsin or
Iowa, or any other State of the Union Sach,
we are convinced, without consulting
legal authorities, was not the purpose of the
institution of the writ, and we would sug-
gest that the present controversy be made
test case with view to determining the
scope of this writ. Our idea of the habeas
corpus-it may not be the legal idea, but is
nevertheless warranted by consideration of
the principles that underlie this guard against
the deprivation of the citizen of his personal
liberty-is that it is co-extensive with the iu-
rlsdiction of the highest court of the nation.
A man who is restrained of his personal lib
erty in California, ought to have the privilege
of having the right of his detention inquired
into IN the State of Maine or any other State
IN the Union, and the writ of habeas CORPUS
ought to he comprehensive enough to follow
him and Re operative wherever he may
go. If the courts decide that such a
writ, issued in Minnesota, is not op-
eratlve in Wisconsin, what is to hinder
the most lnoffensive citizen of this State
from being kidnapped across the line to
Wisconsin, and there restrained of his liberty
Illegally! 1t is not an answer to say that he
has right to sue out such writ wherever
he may be imprisoned. He may be stranger
there, without friends to intercede for him
or attorneys to plead his cause, while his
prosecutors may be all-powerful. The very
essence of justice requires that he have the
privilege of being heard in his own behalf on
a writ issued at the place of his original ar
rest, whether he may be within the jurisdic-
ton of the court issuing that writ or a
thousand miles away. The fact that such a
writ is applied for is prima facie evidence
that there is question as to the legality of
his arrest. A known criminal, legally ar
rested and confined, never asks for a writ of
habeas corpus, knowing full we'll that when
the writ was heard he would be denied his
freedom. But there are thousands of per-
sons who are arrested every year at the in
stigation of malicious persons, for no crime
committed by them, to whom the habeas
corpus is boon beyond price.
There are features of the Frank case
which bring the question of the potency of
the habeas corpus forward in new light.
The effect of the granting of such writ is
to destroy warrant of arrest for the time
being, but whether the release of prisoner
from arrest in Wisconsin vitiates warrant
issued for his arrest in Minnesota remains to
be decided. Our opinion is that the priv
ileges of the writ are not oircumscribed bv
State boundaries, but that it is operative
wherever it shall find the man who is alleged
to be illegally restrained of his liberty. We
shall await decision on this point with
interest, for it is a question of very deep con-
Germ.