T
FRA
o
NC I S
P r o fess or
M"
of
LI E B E R
H i st o ry
LL D
.
,
an d
.
,
P o l i ti c al S c i en c e i n C o l u mb i a C o l l ege , N ew "
ork
.
LI E B E R :
W e h av e t al k ed an d w r i tt e n m uc h t o e ac h o th er o n t hi s H ab e as
C o rp us q uest io n I t i s a p o l i t i ca l rat h er t h an a l e ga l q u e st io n
a m i xed p o l i t i ca l a n d c onst i tut io na l q uest io n
O n pr o p o s i t io n s
o f t hi s n atur e y o u ar e a b e tte r aut ho r i t y t h an I a m t h at i s t o
sa y y o u ar e an aut h o r i t y an d I am n o t t ho ug h i f i t w er e a q u e s
t i o n o f c o m m o n l a w y o u w o u l d un d erstan d i t a s w e ll as i f y o u
h a d b ee n b r ed t o t h e B ar T he r e a r e di ffi c u l t i es i n t h e q u e st io n
a r i s i ng m a i n ly fr o m t he conc i s e t ho ug h c o m p r eh en s i v e w or d s o f
t he C o n st i tut i on r e fe rr i ng t o t hi n gs un de rst ood t o e xp l a i n t h e m
w i t h o ut e x p l a i n i n g t he m i ts e lf w i t h p r e c i s i on N o o ne s h o u l d
be d ogm at i ca l o r v er y c o n fi de nt i n suc h a m att er ; b ut p e r h ap s
o n e w h o h as l i v ed as l o n g as I h av e un de r t he C o n st i tut io n m a y
b e p e r m i tt e d t o p ut so m e o f hi s t ho ug h t s i nto t he c o m m o n m ass
t h at t h e best Op i n i o n m a y b e e x tract ed fr o m t h e w h o l e I t i s b y
t he e l i m i nat io n o f err o rs o n b ot h s ide s o f a q u e st io n t h at w e
c o m e t o t h e t rut h
N o on e w h o m I k n o w i s m ore c om p e t e nt t h an y o urs e lf t o de
t e et t he e rro r s i n t hi s p ap e r ; an d i f y o u s h a ll t hi n k t h at t he y
perva d e 0 r co mp r ehe n d t h e w h o l e argum e n t I s h a ll st i ll rem a i n
W i t h s i nc e r e regar d an d r e sp e ct
" o ur fr ie n d an d s e rv ant
DEA R
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
H
P H I L A D E LP H I A
.
Dec 23 , 1 86 1
.
.
6 3 4 75 4
ORA CE
B I NNE "
.
I NT R O D U C T O R "
.
r i g h t o f t h e P r e s ide nt O f t he Un i te d S tat e s i n t i m e o f
reb e ll io n an d w he n t h e p ub li c sa fe t y i n hi s j u d gm e nt r eq u i r e s
to a rr e st an d d eta i n a fre e m an i n t em p o rary d en i a l o r de l a y o f
ba i l t r i a l o r di sc h arge t h at i s t o sa y o f hi s p ri v i l e g e o f t h e
W r i t o f H ab e as C o rp us h as b e en e x hi b i t ed b y w r i t e rs i n o ur
J o urna l s i n t h r ee p oi nt s o f v i e w
1 A s t h e l a w fu l e x e rc i se O f m i l i tar y p o w er d er i v ed t o t he
P r e s ide nt as c o m m an de r i n c hie f o f t h e m i l i tar y force n o w o n
foo t fo r t he su p pr e ss io n O f i n surrect io n
2 A s an i nc ide nt o f m art i a l l a w i n t i m e o f w ar w i t hi n t he
co u n tr y r epel l i n g t h e i nt e rfe renc e o f t h e c i v i l aut h o r i t y i n a ll
cas e s i n w hi c h t h e r e st o rat io n o f o r de r r equ i r e s t he ap p l i cat io n
o f t h e m i l i tar y p r i nc i p l e
3 A s a c i vi l p o w e r sp ri ng i ng fro m t h e H abeas C o rp u s c l aus e
i n t he C o nst i tut io n an d t o b e aut ho r iz ed b y C o n gress i n l ik e
m anner as b y t h e P ar l i am e nt o f E ng l an d b y de l e gat i n g t o t h e
P r e s ide n t t h e p o w er t o arr e st an d de ta i n p e rs o ns w i t hi n t h e
l i m i tat io n s p r e scr i b ed b y t h e C o n st i tut i on
T h e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l s Op i n i on i s n o t c o m p r eh en ded b y t hi s
di v i s io n T h at Op i n io n i s fo un ded o n t h e a ll ege d c o o r di nat io n
o f t h e t h r ee de p art m e nt s an d up o n t he co eq ua l aut h o ri t y o f t he
E x ecut i v e t o i nt e rp re t t h e C o n st i tut i o n i n w h at r e gar d s t h e E x
ec u ti ve d ut ie s an d p o w ers an d esp e c i a lly hi s d ut y an d p o w e r t o
prot e ct an d de fe n d t h e C o nst i tut io n an d t o supp r e ss i nsurr e c t io n
an d r e b e ll io n aga i nst t h e g o v e rn m en t o f t h e nat i o n ; an d i n t h e
e x e cut io n o f t hi s d ut y an d p o w e r t o arrest an d de ta i n p e rs o n s
w h o ar e i n ei t he r actua l o r susp e ct ed c o m p l i c i t y w i t h reb e ll io n
T he b e ari ng o f t he H ab eas C o rpu s c l aus e i n t he C o nst i tut io n
i s n o t part i cu l ar ly e xpo un ded i n t h at Op i n io n no r i s i t sp ec i a lly
re l ied up o n fo r t h e P r e s ide nt s aut ho r i t y ; ne i t he r i s t h e P re s i
THE
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
'
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
’
-
-
.
-
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
6
de n t s po w e r t re at ed as a m i li tary po w e r but as a c i v i l p o w e r
e x er c i s ed i n t he p er fo r manc e o f t he c i v i l d u t ie s o f hi s o ffi c e
I t i s n o t t he pu rpos e o f t he fo ll o w i ng re ma rk s t o t re at t he
subje ct fr o m ei t her O f t he fi r st t w o po i nts o f v ie w n o r t o affi r m
or r eje ct t he a r gum e nt o f t he A tto r n e y G e n er a l
T h e e xc l us i v e
de s i gn O f t he w ri t er i s to cons ider t he r i gh t o f t he P re s ide nt t o
a rre st an d de ta i n o f hi s o wn mot i on i n t he requ ired con di t i ons
as deri v ed fr om t h e l anguag e O f t he C onst i tut i on an d fr om t he
n atu re o f t he E x e cut i v e O ffi c e
’
,
,
.
,
,
-
.
,
,
,
,
.
a re t wo mo de s o f t re at i ng t hi s matt e r O n e o f t he m i s
the m ere ly l e ga l an d a r t i fi c i al T he ot her i s t he const i tut i onal
an d natu r a l
I n t he fi rst m o de may b e p r es e nt ed an ar gum e nt agai nst t he
P re s ide nt s po wer unt i l C ong re ss h av e aut h o rized i t w hi c h i t
may n o t b e eas y t o answ er i f t he p re m i s e s a re a d m i tt ed T h e
a rgum e nt i s as fo ll o w s :
T he l anguag e o f t he H ab e as C o rpus c l aus e i n t he C onst i tut i on
say s not hi ng dire ct ly an d e xp l i c i t ly i n re ga rd t o t he de pa r t
m e nt O f gov ernm e nt w hi c h i s t o e x er c i s e t he po w er i t g i v e s ;
but i t must b e v ie w ed i n t he l i g h t o f P a rl i am e nta r y l aw i n E ng
l an d an d b y r e fere nc e to t he c u stoma ry s e ns e i n w hi c h suc h
l anguag e was re c ei v ed i n t he count ry fr om w hi c h w e h av e ta ke n
t he g re at bo d y o f o u r l a ws T hi s i t must b e p re sum ed was t he
s e ns e i n w hi c h the C onv e nt i on us ed t hi s l anguag e i n t he fo r m a
t i on o f t h e C onst i tut i on
S uspen ded app l ied t o t he p ri v i l e g e O f t he w ri t o f H ab e as C o r
pus m e ans t he t e mpo r a r y W i t hdraw al o r w i t hh o l di ng o f t he l e ga l
op er at i on o f t h at W ri t fr om an i mp ri son ed p er son T he Wr i t i s
i nst i tut ed b y l aw L aw al on e can w i t hdr a w or w i t hh o l d i ts Op e
r at i on i n an y cas e to w hi c h i t app l ie s T he r e must t here fo re
b e a l aw o r statut e to count er va i l t he l a w b y w hi c h t he W ri t i s
g i v e n b e fo re t he Op er at i on o f t he W r i t can b e w i t hdr awn or
w i t hhe l d fr om a p er son w h o i s i mp ri son ed
T o c re at e a susp e ns i on O f t he p ri v i l e g e O f t he W ri t i n t he ca s e
O f an i mp ri son ed p er son t here must t he n b e 1 a statut e or l aw
w hi c h w i t hdra w s t he p ri v i l e g e fr om t he cont e mp l a ted cas e o f
i mpr i sonm e nt
; an d 2 an a rre st an d i mp ri sonm e nt w i t hi n t he
pu r v ie w o f t h at statut e E fiec tu al susp e ns i on i s t he r e fore a
conjo i nt Op er at i on o f l aw an d act ; t he Op er at i on O f a l aw t o sus
p e n d t he H ab e as C o r pus p ri v i l e g e i n re fe r e nc e to t he cont e m
T here
.
.
.
’
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
‘
‘
.
,
,
p l ate d arrest p ast p r e s e nt o r to co m e an d t h e o p erat io n o f t he
act o f arr e st o r i mpr i s o n m e nt re fe r red t o by t h e l a w
T hi s i s t he m e an i ng o f S spen s i o n o f t h e p r i v i l e g e as i t w as
un de rsto od an d p r act i s ed i n t he P ar l i am e n t o f E ngl an d w he n
o u r C o nst i tut i on wa s fo rm e d
Al t h oug h o u r C on st i tut io n d o e s n o t e x p r e ss ly sa y w hi c h de
r tm en t o f t he g o v e rn m e nt m a y susp e n d t he p ri v i l e g e i t n e
a
p
i
mp
l
ie
s
b
y
t
h
e
u
se
o
f
suc
h
l
anguag
e
t
h
at
t
h
e
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
c es s ar i l
y
tur e s h a ll fi rst p ass t h e l aw an d t h at t he e x ecut i v e o ffi c e r s h a ll
t h e n p er fo rm o r o r de r t h e a ct O f i mp r i s o nm en t an d de ta i n er
T hi s i s t h e m e r e ly l e ga l an d art i fi c i a l argum e nt
,
,
,
,
.
u
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
t h e l anguag e o f t h e C o n st i tut io n i n t hi s p art ic u l ar w as
n o t t h e cust o m ar y l anguag e o f t h e d a y ei t h e r i n E ng l an d O r i n
t h e U n i t ed S tat e s ; an d t h e P ar l i am entar y p ract i c e w as t h e v e r y
t hi n g t h at w a s t o b e s t renu o us ly r ej e ct ed an d e x cl u ded T h e
l anguag e o f t h e H ab e a s C o rpus c l ause i n t he C o n st i tut i o n w as
n ew an d i s p e cu l i ar ; an d i t m ust b e v ie w ed i n i ts o w n l i g h t an d
i n t h e l i g h t a ff or ded b y o t her p a r ts o f t h e sa m e C onst i tut io n
T h e C onst i tut i on do e s n o t us e t he w o r d s u spen ded i n an art i
fi ci al o r t e c h n i ca l s e ns e fo r i t h a d n on e i n t hi s r e l at io n ; n o r a s
c o n s i st i ng o f t w o acts an act o f l e g i s l at io n an d an act O f i mpr i
s o n m en t ; b ut a s o n e t hi ng un de r t he sanct io n o f t he C o n s t i t u
t io n T he w arran t o f arr e st w i t h t h e o rd er t h at t h e p art y s
p r i v i l e g e b e de n ied for a seas o n i s susp ens io n un d e r t h e Co nst i
A t e m p o rar y de n i a l O f t he p r i v i l e g e b y a s i ng l e a c t
t u ti o n
foun ded o n t he aut ho r i t y O f t h e C o n st i tut i on i s a ll t h at i s n e c o s
sar y t o susp en d t h e p r i v i l e g e
T h e p o we r t o i m p r i s o n an d t o de n y o r de l a y a di sc h arge fr o m
i m pri son m e n t i s an e x e cut i v e p o w er All t h e c o n di t io n s O f t h e
e x e rc i s e O f t he p o w e r de s c r i b ed i n t h e H ab e as C o r pu s c l aus e
ar e of e x e cut i v e cogn iz anc e t h at i s t o sa y reb e ll io n o r i n vas i o n
an d t h e r eq u i rem e nt o f t h e p ub l i c sa fe t y i n t h e t i m e o f e i t he r
N O l e g i s l at i v e act i s n e c e ssar y o r p r o p e r t o g i v e t h e c o gn iz an c e
O f t he s e facts t o t he e x ecut i v e de partm e nt N o act o f P ar l i am e n t
h as ev e r b ee n p ass ed i n E ng l an d o r h as b ee n p r o p o s ed i n C o n
gr e ss t o t a k e a w a y o r ab r id ge t he e x e cut i v e p o w e r i n r e gar d t o
t h e se facts All t h e acts o f P ar l i am e n t w hi c h de pr i v e p e rson s o f
t h e ri g h t t o ba i l o r tr i a l i n de rogat io n o f t he H ab e as C o rp us A ct
O f C h ar l e s II l e av e t hi s p o w e r an d di scret i o n t o t he C r o w n
T h e y cann o t b e ta k e n a w a y b y C o n gr e ss w i t ho u t i nva di ng t he
’
c o nst i tut io na l l i m it s o f t he E x ecut i v e o ffi c e
T h e y cann o t b e
B
ut
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
8
g i v e n b y C ongr e ss to t he E x e cut i v e w i t ho ut sup ere rogat i ng w h at
t he C onst i tut i on g i v e s T he on ly t hi ng requ ired t o br i n g t hi s
po w e r an d di s c re t i on i nto op erat i on i n t he c o n di t i on ed cas e s
aga i nst t he p ri v i l e g e o f t he W ri t i s an aut hori t y sup e r i or to t he
l a w w hi c h aut h o rize s or ma y aut h or ize t he W ri t ; an d tha t i s
t he aut h o ri t y o f t he C onst i tut i on i n t he H ab e as C o r pus c l aus e
T he p o w er to susp e n d t he pr i v i l e g e o f t he W ri t i s m o reo v er
i ns e par ab ly conn e ct ed w i t h re b e ll i on o r i nvas io n — w i t h i nt e rna l
wa r T he dire ct i on o f suc h a war i s n e c e ssar i ly w i t h t he E x e
T he O ffi c e cannot b e de p ri v ed o f i t I t i s t he d ut y o f
c u t i ve
t he Offi c e i n bot h i ts m i l i ta ry an d c i v i l asp e cts to supp re ss i n
su r r e ct i on an d t o re p e l i nvas i on T he po w er t o susp e n d t he
p ri v i l e g e i s supp l e m e nta ry to t he m i l i tary po w e r to suppr e ss
I t i s a c i v i l po w er to a rre st for p ri v i t y o r suppos ed
o r re p e l
p ri v i t y w i t h re b e ll i on as t he m i l i tar y po w er i s to supp re ss b y
cap tu re fo r ov e rt ac ts o f re b e ll i on T he y s h ou l d re s ide i n t he
sam e mag i st r at e as i ns e pa r ab l e i nc ide nt s o f t he E x e cut i v e po w er
i n t i m e O f i nt er na l wa r T he av er s i on t o t hi s d oct ri n e w here i t
e x i sts i s a re m i n i sc e nc e o f t he E ngl i s h pr actl ce w he n t he C ro wn
c l a i m ed t he ri g h t to susp e n d t he p ri v i l eg e i n t i m e o f p r o foun d
p e ac e an d o rder ; or i t i s a m i sconc e pt i on o f t he g r oun d s O f P a r
li am en t ar y act i on s i nc e t he H ab e as C orpus A ct o f Ch a r l e s II
T he t r u e c h a r act er O f e v er y act o f P ar l i am e nt i n t hi s r e l at i on
an d o f t he on ly b i ll t h at h as b ee n p r opos ed i n C ongre ss h as b ee n
e x e cut i v e an d s o i t must b e T he y h av e sa id i n e ffe ct an d must
sa y t h at t he a ct o f t he " i ng s C ounc i l o r O f t he P r e s ide nt s h a ll
b e fin a l T he on ly asp e ct i n w hi c h an act O f C ongr e ss t o t hi s
e ffe ct can b e re ga rded as l e g i s l at i v e i s as t he g r ant or cr e a
t i on o f an a u tho r i ty to de ta i n aga i nst t he w ri t ; but t hi s i s sup e r
er o ga ti o n
b e caus e t he C onst i tut i on g i v e s i t T he on ly q u e st i on
i s t o w h i c h de partm e nt o f t he gov ernm e nt t he e x er c i s e o f i t b e
l ongs b y t he g e n er a l sc he m e o f t he C onst i tut i on ; an d acco rdi ng
t o t he de l i n e at i on o f t he de part m e nts i n t h at i nst r um e nt t he ex
c r ci s e O f t he po w er app er ta i ns to t he P re s ide nt
T hi s i s t he b ro a d const i tut i ona l an d natu r a l a r gum e nt ; an d i t
i s i n suppo r t o f t hi s h ypot he s i s t h at t he foll o w i ng r e mar k s ar e
m a de
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
T HE P R IVI LE GE O F TH E W R I T
.
cl ause in the C o n stituti on o f the U n ited S tates in re g ard
t o th e p rivi leg e o f the W ri t o f Ha b eas C o r p us i s this :
T he p ri vi l e g e of the W rit o f H a b eas C o r p us shall no t b e
sus p ended un l ess wh en i n cases o f re b e ll i on o r invasi o n the
”
p u bl i c safety m ay r equire i t
T he sente nc e is e l l i p ti c a l W h e n th e e l l i p sis is su ppl ied it rea ds
thus :
T h e p rivi l e g e o f the W ri t o f Hab e as C o r p us shall no t b e
sus p end e d un l es s whe n i n cases o f re b e ll i o n o r invasi o n the
”
p u bl i c safety m ay re quire i t ; a n d then i t may be su spen ded
”
“
T hi s i s the n e c essary e ffect o f th e co nj unc ti on un l ess whi c h
reverses the a c ti on o f the p re c edi n g ver b ; a n d i t wi ll b e of p er
fec tly equiva l en t i mpo rt a n d e ff ect i f th e cl ause b e trans po sed as
follo ws : T h e p rivi l e g e o f th e W rit o f Ha b eas C o r p us m ay b e
sus p en d e d i n c ase s o f re b e ll i on o r invasi o n wh en the p u bl i c
safety may re quire it ; a n d i t sha ll no t b e sus p ended i n any o th er
THE
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
ca s efi
’
T he c l ause co ntain s an ex p ressi on that b elo n g s t o the l aw
”
”
T he W rit o f Ha b eas C o r p us
T he W rit o f Ha b eas C o r p us
si mpl y an d with o u t mo re m ea n s the W ri t o f Ha b eas C o r p us a d
T his was and i s th e m eani ng universa ll y whe n
su bjz cz en du m
w e S p eak o f a W rit of Ha b eas C o r p us in th e United States with
ou t any a ffi x
T his W rit c o mmands that the bo dy o f a detaine d o r im p ris o ne d
p ers on b e b r o u g ht b efo re a co urt o r j ud g e with the caus e o f his
c om mitm e n t o r detainer t o b e subj e c ted t o th e o rder o f th e c o urt
o r j ud g e in re g ar d t o the dis po sa l o f his p ers o n By Ha b eas
C o r p us a c ts g e n era ll y th e p rivi l e g e of ev ery free m an i s t o be
d e l ivered o n b ai l p ut u pon his trial , o r di s c har g ed with o ut ar
,
.
,
,
'
'
'
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
10
of H a
d
e
l
y
and
t
hi
s
is
t
h
e
p
rivi
l
eg
e
whic
h
t
h
e
W
r
i
t
a
b i tr ar y
beas C o rpus i s us e d to en forc e —t o be b a i l ed , tri e d o r d i sc h arg e d
with o ut arb i trary d e l ay
The Un i t e d S t at e s whi l e t he C onst i tut i on was in t he course
of forma ti on h ad no W rit of Hab e as C o rpus o r Habeas C orpus
Ac t ; an d t h e c l aus e th e refore d oe s n o t refer to any part i cu l ar
l aw statut e o r w ri t th at was in Op e rat i on or us e in a particu l ar
p l ac e I t used the expr e ss i on g en e rall y as l an g uag e o f t h e l aw
i n t h e Stat e s in w hi ch it ha d a c e rta i n m e an i ng
The pr i vi l e ge mentioned in t h e c l ause i s t he r e fore th e privi
l eg e of an impris o n ed o r deta i ned p e rson Of b ei n g ba i l ed tried
or d i scharged w ith out arbitrary de l ay
”
T h e words s ha ll n ot be s u spen ded as app l i e d t o t h e pr i vi
leg e are n o t w o rds of t h e comm o n l aw or o f an y oth e r s y st e m
They a re not t e c h nical T hey ar e words
o f l aw i n particu l ar
i n g e nera l or p o pu l ar us e ; and when e v e r used in r e ference t o a
pr i v i l e g e s i gn i fy t h e same t hi n g as hung u p d e fe rred d e l ay e d
de n ied for a season I t is n o t unc omm o n in En gl a n d and i n th i s
country t o speak o f the susp e nsi o n o f t h e Hab e as Corpus A ct
a l o os e and inaccurate e xpr e ssi o n b ecaus e the Ha be a s C o rpus
Act is n e v e r susp e n d ed The Par l i am e nt of En gl and b y i ts i m
prisonm e nt acts de priving certa i n persons committ e d by war
rant Of t h e K i ng s P rivy C o unc il o r S e cr e tary o f S tat e o f the
pr i v i l ege o f ba i l and trial do not speak of suspend i n g t h e
H abeas Co rpus Act o f 3 1 Ch ar l e s II o r o f suspend i n g t he W rit
of H ab e as Co rpus o r o f suspendin g anything B la cks ton e in
o ne instanc e sp e a k s o f susp e ndi ng t he H ab e as C o rpus A ct fo r
”
a s h ort or l imit e d t i me ; whe n i n fact the H abeas C o rpus A c t
He sp oke
o f Eng l and has n e ver b ee n susp e nd e d for a mo m e nt
l oo se l y and inaccurat e l y The E ng l i s h i mprisonment Acts made
during t he r e be ll io n for t he Pret e nd e r di d susp e nd a S ta tu te o f
S cotl and to pr e v e nt wr ongou s impr i sonm e nt so far as r e gards
treason i n o rd e r to ou s t t he j urisd i ct i on of a l ocal auth o rit y over
a part i cu l ar cr i m e ; and t h e e xpr e ssi o n was righ t B u t they used
no such w o rds as to the Engl i s h statut e or wr i t
Susp e nd ing th e pr i vi lege o f th e W rit i s n o t an Eng l i sh l aw
expr e ssion I t was first i ntr o duced i nto the C onst i tut i on o f the
Un i ted Stat e s T h e priv i l eg e i s p e rsonal and individual n o t
l oc al b ut sub s i sts i n remedy The r i gh t o f b e in g exempt from
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
11
ar b itrary i mp ris o n m en t is a n atura l ri g ht an d i s p redi c a bl e b y
the C o m m on L aw o f e very freeman ; and t o han g up defer
d el ay deny fo r a sea s o n th e p rivi l e g e which a s ta tute g ives o r
is e x p ected t o g ive i n re l ief o f im p ris o nment i s t o su spen d i t i n
th e sense o f this cl aus e o f the C o n stituti o n F reed om i s t h e
ri g h t e ither a b s ol ute o r qua l ified T he rem edy is p ri vi l e g e
T hi s then i s the wh ol e m e anin g o f th e c l aus e i n o ur C o n sti
th e p ri vi l e g e of b ein g b ai l ed tried o r dis c har g ed fr o m
t u ti o n —
i mpris o nment with o ut de l ay sha ll n o t b e discreti o n all y deni ed
o r hun g u p o r deferred un l ess when in c ases o f r e b e ll i on o r i n
vas i o n the p u bl i c safety may require i t ; and th en o r in th o se
circumstan c es it m ay b e d enied o r deferred for a seas o n o r tem
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
or a r i l
p
y
.
T he p e opl e O f th e U n ited S tates h av e said this b y th eir C o n
T he po wer to sa y this b e lo n g s t o th e
s ti tu ti o n o f go vernment
Unite d S tates b y the g rant o f th e p eo pl e T h ey h ave said th a t
the p rivi l e g e o f b ein g b ai l ed tri ed or dis c har g ed when in c ases
o f re b e l l i o n o r invasi o n th e p u bl ic safety m ay require it may
b e denied defe rre d o r hun g u p for a seas o n
T he C o nstituti o n o f the United S tate s a u thor i z es this t o b e
d o n e under th e c o n di ti on s tha t there b e re b e ll i on o r i n vasi o n at
t h e time an d th at th e p u bl ic safety re quir e s it T he C o n s ti tu
ti o n d o es n o t a u thor i z e any de p ar tm en t o f the go vern m en t t o
T he C o n stituti o n itse l f auth o ri z e s it By wh o m
a u tho r i z e it
it i s t o b e don e th at is t o say b y wh at de p artm en t o f the go
ver n men t this p rivi l e g e i s to b e denied o r deferre d fo r a se as o n
under th e co nditi o ns stat ed th e C o nstituti o n d o es n o t ex p ress l y
say ; an d that is th e questi o n o f th e day
T h e C o n stituti o n use s the o n e wo rd s u spen ded t o si g nify o ne
ac t b y o n e a g en t o r bo dy wi th o ne e ff ec t c o nsu m mate b y o n e
O p erati o n — i mp ris onm en t with o ut b ai l trial o r disch ar g e fo r
a seas o n ; whi c h a c t it auth o ri z es in c ertain conditi o ns o f the
nation I t i s im po ssi bl e t o su ppo se that i n s p eakin g o f sus
p end i n g the pr i vilege o f th e W rit it m ean t b y on e a c t o f la w
as if it had s po k en o f th e Wr i t alo ne o r o f th e Hab eas C o r p us
A ct
A n d i t is e q ua ll y imp o ssi bl e that it m ean t the g enera l o r
uni versa l p rivi l e g e in the U n i te d S tates at l ar g e T his w o u l d
hav e b ee n a n i n fi n i te a b surdity c om p rehendin g a n d inv ol vin g a ll
free m en friends as we ll as fo es o f th e go vernm ent a n d e ven th e
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
~
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
12
v e ry pers ons who sh o u l d susp end the p rivi l e g e Neith e r d i d it
mean t o spe ak of t wo acts one o f auth o rity and o n e Of execu
ti o n for it s o wn wo rd s are th e auth o rity Th e privi l e g e i s meces
p
er
sona
l
o
r i ndiv i dua l ; and b y orda i ning t h at t h i s may be
s ar i l
y
suspen d ed o n certa i n c o nd i t i ons it l eaves no thi n g c o nting e n t ex
c e pt t h os e condit i ons and no t h i ng un e xpr e ss e d ex ce pt t h e d e
a r tmen t by w hi ch t he c o nd i t i ons w e r e to b e d e c l ared to e xist
p
T he question is
an d t he ac t o f impr i s o nment t o be ex e cuted
wh i c h i s t h at departme n t "
I t must b e r e m ar k ed t h at this wh ol e prov i s i on is un l ik e any
provision o f t h e Const i tution o f Engl and or o f t h e C ommon Law
The bear i ng o f t he Consti t ut i on o f Eng l and upon th e W rit O f
H abeas Corpus an d up o n t h e e xecu ti ve p o w e r o f t he K i n g to
suspend t he pers o nal p r i vi l eg e of a subj e ct supp l ie s a v e ry de
fec ti ve a n d a v e ry d ec e pt i v e ana l ogy fo r th e i nt e rpr e ta t i o n o f
t h e Const i tut io n of the Un i t e d Sta te s ; a v e ry di ffe r e nt Co nsti
t u ti o n as w e k n o w an d wh i ch has a d opted new and quite o ri
gin al l anguag e i n r e l a t i on t o th e pr i v i l e ge
Th e doc t r i ne o f th e Eng l i s h C omm o n L aw i s t he u n i ver s a l
ex empt i on of the fr ee men o f En gl and at al l t i mes and with o ut
an y exc e p ti on fr om discr e t ionary impr i s o nment by an y b o dy
T h e l anguage o f t he 39 th c l aus e o f Mag n a C ar ta is t o t h e sam e
N U LLU S LI B E R H O MO ca i a tu r vel i m r i s on etu r a u t u t
e ffe ct
p
p
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
x
lagetu r ,
eu
a u t e u lctu r
,
m i bi mu s ,
ari u
n ec
m sn or u m
su
per
vel
a u t a li
,
modo des tr u a tu r ;
n
a
g
m mi ttemu s ,
”
legem ter r ae
cu
n i si
“
n ee s u
er
p
leg a le ju di ci u m
per
t h e era there
”
“
fo r e of K ing J oh n s charter M r H all am say s it must have
b ee n a c l e ar pr i nc i p l e o f our C o nst i tuti on t h at n o man can b e
”
de tai n e d i n p r ison w ith out trial Mi dd Ag e s II 8 24 And
t hi s conforms pr e c i s e ly to th e two r e s ol u t i o ns carri e d by S ir
Ed war d Coke in t he H ous e of C omm o ns i n 1 6 28 w h ic h wer e
afterwards the foun d ati o n of th e Eng l i sh Hab e as Corpus Act o f
3 1 C h ar l e s II
I T hat n o fr e eman oug h t t o b e comm i tt e d o r d e ta i n e d in
pris o n o r ot h erwis e r e stra i n e d b y the comman d of the K i ng o r
t h e Priv y C ounc i l or an y ot h er un l ess s ome cause o f th e com
mi tmen t de ta i ner or r e s t ra i nt be expr e ss e d or whi ch b la w
f
y
p
p er
.
F r om
,
’
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
he
h
t
t
o
be
g
ou
,
co
,
mmi tted , detai n ed ,
II Th at the W rit
.
,
of
o r r es tr a i n ed
,
,
.
H abeas C o rpus cann o t b e d e nied b ut
,
13
o u ght t o b e g ra n te d t o every man tha t i s comm itted o r detained
i n p ris o n o r o therwise restrained b y the comm and o f the K in g
th e Pri vy C o u nc il o r any o ther 2 Par l Hist 2 59
E xem p ti on fr om dis c reti o n ary im p ris o nm e n t wi th o ut b ai l o r
tri al is therefo re a n u n d o ub ted p rin c i pl e o f the C o mm o n La w
B efo re the era o f Kin g J o h n s Ch arter th ere m ay b e hi s to r i
ca l un c ertainty i n thi s m atter T h e p revi o us a g e was on e o f
the exer c ise o f l ar g e ar b itr ary po wer b y the K i n g T he Nor
m an con quest sat d o wn o n the free co d e o f th e Sax o ns i n the
T e mpo r ary
cu n a bu la o f the co mm on l aw a n d p ressed it he avi l y
im p ris o nme n t at the K in g s pl easure h ad d o u b t l ess o c curred in
m any c ases ; and i n ti m e of r e b e ll i o n o f which the No r m a n
K i ng s had m o re tha n o n e sam pl e i t i s quite p r ob abl e that su c h
im p ris o nme n t m ay h ave b een acquies c ed i n fo r th e p u bl i c safety
a n d th at the Kin g s ri g ht may thu s h ave a c quired s o me sa n c ti o n
fr om u sa g e g ivin g colo r t o the ex er c ise o f th e sa m e po wer whe n
ther e wa s n o r e b e ll i o n B ut th e En gl ish B ar o n s in their c on
test with K in g J o hn had th e m a g nanimity t o p ut the m atter
b ey on d d o u b t no t onl y as t o the m se l ves b ut a s t o the free m en
o f E n gl an d g enera ll y ; an d i t i s fo r this reas on that Mr H a ll a m
ha s si g na l i z ed that e po ch
T he p rin c i pl e a llo ws o f n o ex c e p ti o n o r qua l ific ati o n o n ao
co unt o f re b e ll i on o r inv asi o n when war i s with i n the k in g d o m
no r o n a c co un t of any o ther c au se o r m at ter whatever no t e ven
the p u bl ic safety i n t ime o f re b e ll i o n or invasi on
I t i s a glo ri o us p ri n ci pl e and w o rthy o f a ll as p irati on l ike
e fectn ess
B ut it i s t o o p erfec t fo r hum a n s oc iety at l east for
p r
the co nditi o n which hum an s oc iety ha s usuall y assum ed for se
vera l cent uri es I t was the o ccasi o n o f fierce stru gg l es b etwe en
kin g s a n d p e o p l e in En gl and b efo re Ma g n a C art a and after ;
and th e stru ggl e was n o t fina ll y ended unti l the l atter ha l f o f th e
1 7th c e n tury b y th e defeat o f the K in g s ar b itrary po wer an d
b y th e de po sit o f ar b itrary po wer o ver the sam e p rinci pl e n o t
i n the p e opl e wh o o ri g ina ll y h e l d i t b ey o n d all ar b itram ent b ut
i n th e Par l iament o f En gl a n d as if th ey were in c a p a bl e o f
a b usin g it L e ss l ike l y Par l ia m e n t m ay b e ; l ess a bl e Par l iament
i s n o t T h e C o nstituti o n o f E ngl a nd appea r s t o b e no w wh a t i t
a l ways was in re g ar d t o this p ri nc i pl e ; a n d En gl ish l a wyers an d
states m e n sti ll say th at i t i s a p rinci pl e o f their C o n stituti o n as
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
’
,
.
.
,
.
,
’
,
,
’
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
’
,
,
,
,
,
'
.
,
.
,
,
14
it a l ways was t h at n o man can b e d et a i n e d in p ri son wit ho ut
t r i al B ut t he re i s an o the r pr i ncip l e wh i c h th e y ass e rt w ith e qua l
s t r e n g t h and constanc y th a t w h at Parl i ament d e c l a re s to be
t h e Const i tut i on o f Engl and is th e Const i tut io n o f Eng l and ; or
rat h er that what Parl iament enacts th e c o urts of Engl and
cannot adj udg e to be unc o ns ti tuti onal and v o id and th e r e for e
that al th ou g h by t h e Comm o n L aw and M ag na Carta and t h e
Constitu t i o n o f Eng l an d n o man can b e d e ta i n e d i n pr i s o n with
o u t trial y e t t h at P a r l i am e nt ma y c o nstitut io na ll y or imper i a ll y
auth o rize th e K i ng s P riv y C ounc i l or o n e of h i s S e cr e tar i es o f
State o r pe rh aps a ny bo d y at the i r p l easur e to impr i s o n a fr ee
man i n t i m e o f p e ac e w he n t h er e i s n ei ther r e b e ll io n nor i nva
s i on n o r an y t hi ng li k e war i n th e kingd om but onl y sed i tious
ag i tat i ons fo r r e fo rm o r c l amors a g a i nst a m i nistry w i t h sc a r
c i ty and dera n g e m e nt of trad e acc om p an i e d b y tr e aso nab l e or
s u s ected treasonab l e pract i c e s ; and ma
d
e
ta
i
n
him
w
ith
out
p
y
tr i a l or bai l for s i x m o nths or a y e ar o r fo r any time t h ey see
fi t r e n e wab l e for e ver at t he p l easur e o f P arl i ament
Th e pr i nc i p l e the refore o f the o l d common l aw that e very
fr eem a n is e nti t l ed at a ll times an d i n a ll cas e s to b e e x empt
from di scr e t i onary o r arbitrary impr i s o nm e n t has i n En gl and
c om e practi cally t o this — that he i s e nt i tl ed t o it un le ss Parli a
m e nt s h a ll i n t h e i r d i scret i on see fit to take it away for a t i m e
b y g i vin g t he p o w e r o f such impris o nm e nt to the K i n g i n C o un
c il or to o ne o f th e K i ng s principal S e cr e tari e s of Stat e o r
p e rhaps to any bo dy t hey se e fit
T h e r e i s n o int e ntion in say i ng t hi s t o find fau l t with th e
Eng l ish C onsti tution w
hi ch must b e taken as a w hol e and is
t r ul y a magn i fic e nt w o rk th e r e su l t of vast e xp e r ie nce wisdom
and g e n i us for th e g o vernm e nt o f fr eemen ; bu t th e intent i on i s
to stat e an i n di sputab l e fact to which t he peop l e o f t he s e Un ite d
Sta te s wer e w i de awak e wh e n they mad e t hei r Co nst i tution and
r e garde d it as a v e ry e x ce ptionab l e fact and who ll y i nadm i ssib l e
b y them The y m e ant to exc l ud e Parl i amentary l aw to q ual i fy
th e pr i nc i p l e as t he pub l i c safe ty o f t h e country requir e d and to
de c l ar e t he cond iti ons o r q ual i ficat i ons of th e princi pl e for t he m
s e l ves T o state t hi s i s to c l e ar away s om e th i n g from th e dec ep
ti ve ana l ogy o f th e Eng l i sh Const i tution and the cours e o f Par
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
li amen t
,
.
15
T he fo r m a l con test fo r t he po ssessi o n o f this dis c reti o n t o i m
p ri s o n and detain wi th o ut tria l was lo n g in E n gl an d ; b ut do es
n o t req uire lo n g t o state I t w as first b etwee n the K in g a n d
th e Lo rds o r Bar o ns an d t hen b etween the K i ng a n d s om e o f
the p e opl e and finall y b etween th e Kin g an d th e Par l ia me n t ; a n d
thi s Parl ia m entary c on test with th e K i ng b e g a n an d ended with
that fam i l y o f K in g s i n wh o s e r ei g ns o r at t he end o f the m
En gl ishmen settl ed the gre at p rin ci pl es o f th eir go ver n m ent
T he Ha b eas C o r p us Ac t o f 3 1 Char le s II as we ll as a m o re
p o i n t ed an d a n ti re g a l s tatute o f 1 6 Ch arl es I whi ch follo wed
the Petiti o n o f Ri g h t was m ade durin g this c o nte st i n jeal o u s v
o f the R o ya l hereditary po wer as th e C o nstituti o n o f that
mon archy had imm e m o ria ll y estab l ishe d i t I t was i n j ea lo u sy
o f th e R o ya l here di tary po wer g e n era ll y b ut wa s quick en ed
and invi go ra ted g reatl y b y j ea lo us y of the ra c e o f K in g s th e n
o n th e thr o ne
N ear l y th e wh ol e o f that c entury was an a g e
O f tran siti o n fr om the irre g u l ar and di s p ute d prete n si o ns o f th e
E ngl ish Cr o w n s o m etime s co ntr ol l in g an d a l ways m e n a c in g the
C o mm o ns frequentl y usin g and p er p etua ll y t hreatenin g th e use
o f ar b itrary po we r t o th e p rinci pl es o f co n stituti o na l go ve rn
m en t as asserted b y Par l iam ent an d as de n ied b y the C r o w n ;
an d Par l iam en t su c ceeded I t cann o t b e said th a t th e p e opl e
su cc ee d ed i n the sam e de g ree T h at n a ti on ha s n o w arrived at
a sta g e i n whi c h the co n test fo r in fl uen c e in th e go vernm en t is
b etween di ff eren t c las s es of the people ; a n d the g re a t questi on
b etwee n th em is whether th e p eo p l e at l ar g e have as l ar g e a
share in th e go vern me nt o f them se l ves a s t hey o u g h t t o h ave a n d
c a n b ear ; b ut fo r n ear l y th e wh ol e p eri od o f the s e co nd S tuart
K in g it wa s a c o ntest b etwee n th e Par l iamen t a n d th e Cr o wn ;
a n d the security o f the p ers on O f the su bj e c t fr o m ar b itrary i m
p riso n ment b y th e K in g a n d o f his p r op erty fr o m the arbitrary
e xacti o ns O f the K in g were th e po i n ts u pon whi c h a ll pol iti ca l
mo vem e n ts turn ed
N either the 1 6 Char l e s I no r the 3 1 Ch ar l es II did m o re
than affi rm the immem o ri a l c us t om o r p rin c i pl e o f the co mm on
l aw whi c h has b ee n adverted t o and the K i ng s i nc a p a c ity t o
su p er s e de it at his discreti o n ; b ut the l ate r sta tute has derive d
its re p utati on and pop u l arity fr om fen c in g the p rivi l e g e of the
W rit o f Ha b eas C o rp us wi th th e mo st j ea lo u s g uards a g ain st th e
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
-
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
,
-
16
dependants O f the K i n g his J udge s wh o he l d their offic e s durin g
hi s p l e asur e and h i s o fficers of h is s o l e appo i ntm e nt who in
subserv ie nc e t o hi s w i sh e s had in conspic u o us i nstanc e s made
th e common l aw o f no avai l ag ai nst th e Crown T wo chang e s
in the C o nst i tuti on of En gl and makin g g oo d behav i or t h e t e nure
of j ud i cial o ffic e and re q uiring the assent o f a br a nch of th e
Leg i s l a ture to t he King s ap po intments t o o ffic e m ig h t p erha p s
hav e obviat e d t h e necess i ty of near l y al l the provis i ons of the
gr e at Habeas Co rpus Act I f anyt h ing mak es this doub tful
i t i s t h e c o nst i tuti ona l po wer of th e Cr o wn w hi c h i s l ar ge and
h as a p e rva di ng in flu e nc e th o u g h m uch o f it i s d i sgu i s e d from
o u r obs er vat io n b y i ts exercis e thr o ugh m i nisters wh o ar e i n
Par l iam e n t and th e l e ad e rs o f tha t b o dy B u t wit h t h es e pro
v i si o ns i n t he C onstituti o n o f t he United States and w i th th e
H ab eas C o r pus c l aus e j ust noticed t h e F edera l Constitut io n h as
g o ne o n fo r s e venty years w i t ho ut a H a b eas C orpus Act and
w i t ho ut any thi ng o f that k i nd but a naked authorit y to the
C o urts and J u d g e s o f t h e F ede r a l J udic i ary to issu e am o n g
oth er wr i ts t h e wr i t o f Hab e as C o rpus
T h e j e al ousy toward the K i ng i n r eg ard t o t hi s W r i t s o
de e p ly root e d in t h e Eng l i sh he a rt dur i ng the s tru gg l e with th e
Stuarts has c o ntinued t o e xist and sti ll exists i n t h e peop l e of
th a t k i ngdom as a princ i p l e with o ut the sam e p e rsona l caus e s
i n th e conduct o f t he reign i ng monarch ; but consider i n g what
t he Offic e o f t he K i ng o f Eng l and i s b y th e settl e d C onst i tuti o n
o f t he K i ngd o m t he re is no d o ub t good r e ason fo r i t ev e n at
t hi s day ; and t h er e a l ways wi ll b e The r oy a l pow e r in Eng
l an d what e v e r w e may say o f it is sti l l a gr e at p o we r and
must r e ma i n a gr e at p o wer i f that n ation woul d remain what i t
is Wi t h a p e op l e j ea l o us o f t hei r persona l l i b e rty and intent
up o n ma i nta i n i ng i t th i s j e al ousy has an d w i ll a l ways hav e a
fo undat i on i n a j ust i fiab l e fear o f t h e r oya l pr e rogativ e s and
i n fl u e nce
T h e e xc l usive r i ght t o d e c l ar e war and to mak e treaties with
for ei gn pow e rs w i thout th e adv i c e and cons e n t o f eit he r b ranch
o f th e l e g i s l ature — t he p o w e r t o bu i l d sh i ps and t o r eg u l t e a
a
—
n av y t he pow e r o f call i n g forth t he m i l i t i a fo r an y caus e which
i n t he K i ng s j ud gment makes i t e xpedient— t he so l e and ex
e l us i v e pow e r of ap poi ntments t o ofli c e b o th c ivi l and mi l itary
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
18
fo r s o me y e ars at d iffe rent e poc h s and h as b een e x h i b it e d c l earl y
and d i st i nc t ly i n t h e e ar l y part o f t he pr e s e nt c e ntury I n mat
t ers wh i c h concern an y thi ng so prec i ous as p e rs o na l l i bert y and
i ts prot e ct i on i n g e n e ra l a g ai nst arb i tr a r y impr i s o nm e nt i t i s a
des i der a tu m in ev e ry fre e C onst i tut i on t o guarantee th e priv i
l eg e o f th e W rit o f Habeas C orpus abs o l ute l y to th e w h o l e e x
t e nt th at the gov e rnment w i ll b e and rema i n i n its n o rma l c o n
d i t io n of i nte r nal peac e and i n t h e re g ul ar a d ministrati o n o f
l aw W he n i t i s thrown o u t o f t h at c o nd it ion by r e be ll io n o r
i nvasi o n facts eas i l y mad e c e rtai n b e y o n d cavi l t e nd i ng t o the
d e rang em e nt o f the c o urse o f j ust i c e and requir i n g a r e sort to
m i l i tary forc e and to some e xtent d i scret io nary c i v i l aut ho rity
t he s e cur i ty o f bo t h t he p e op l e and t he g ov e rnment d emand a
temp o rary l i m i tat i on Of th e pr i v i l e ge to pr e vent its b eing abused
t o i ncr e as e t he di s o rd e r of t h e t i m e s At such seas on s it i s o f
l ess i mportanc e i n w h at branch o f governm e nt th e power of ap
p l y i ng t he l i mita t ion i s v e st e d T hat must dep e nd up o n the
natur e of t he gov e rnment and upon t h e d i str ib uti o n o f its p o wers ;
but it s h oul d obv i ous l y b e w i th t h at d e partm e nt o f the gov ern
m e nt which is the le ast ab l e o f itse l f t o ab us e th e pow e r and i s
the m o st e as i ly and d i rectly made amenab l e t o r e sp o ns i b i l i ty and
corr e ct io n for abuse I n fin e t he C ommon Law pr i nc i p l e r e
qu i r e s qual i ficat i on for m o dern times an d m o st o f a ll in go v e rn
m e nts wh i ch are t he l east str ong and among a p e op l e who are
th e most fre e The E ng l ish C onst i tut i o n st i ll asserts its univer
s ali t
y an d r e s tr i cts i t at p l e asur e b y t h e o mnip o tence of Par l i a
ment O f c o urs e such a pow e r i s l i ab l e t o abus e and t o b e
with o ut r e me d y ho wev e r rar e ly i t may b e abuse d
I n form e r years after t h e R e vo l ut i on of 1 6 88 and w h en th e
c o ntest b e twe e n c l ass e s i n Eng l an d was not as warm as i t h as be
c ome in mor e mo de rn t i m e s — fr om t h e t i m e o f th e Revo l ution
to t he c l o se of t h e ei g h t e ent h century t he pow e r of P a r l iament
was used very much in t h e sp iri t o f t h e l i m i tati o n adv e rted t o ;
but in the e ar ly part of t he pres e nt c e ntu ry i n o n e o r mor e i n
stanc e s i t is suppos e d to h ave d e part e d from it
W hen there was ne i th er reb e ll i on n o r i nvasion n or war and
when t he dan g er of fo r eig n war was removed b y th e o verthrow
o f N ap ol e on t he 57 G eo III 3 M ay 1 8 1 7 gave the p o wer to
the K i ng s Privy Co unci l and Secretaries o f State t o d e tain
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
19
with o u t b ai l or tri al p ers on s co m m i tte d b y th eir warra n t fo r
treas o n abl e o r sus p ecte d treas on a bl e p ra c ti c es durin g t h e l imita
ti o n o f the statute ; and it was t o a g reat e xtent a questi on o f
th e m inistry and o f p arty T h e co untry was deran g ed b y s c ar
c ity and emb aras s men ts o f trade and a g i tated b y their c o mm o n
con sequen c es fra m e b reak in g o r ri c k b urnin g a n d c ries fo r
refo rm T here were p r ob abl y treas on a bl e pra c ti c e s at th e sa m e
mo ment ; b ut th e im p ri s on m ent statute i n the 57th y e ar o f the
Kin g was O b vi o us l y p r o m o ted an d b ut sh o r tl y p re c eded b y an
a c quitta l o f D r W ats o n fr om the charge o f treas on b y a j ury
o f Midd l e sex after a week s tria l str o n g eviden c e of his g ui l t
and a po inted c h ar g e t o the j ury a g ainst him b y Lo rd E ll en
bo r o u g h T h e C o urts were O p e n and un ob structed ; b ut the u r i es
co u l d no t b e re l ied o n t o co nvict th e g ui l ty I t was a c ase o f
i m mense p ar ty a g itati on
S ir Sa m ue l R o mi ll y and o thers
equall y loya l t o th e C o nstituti o n th o u g h n o t frien d l y t o th e
ministers oppo sed the statute v e hem ent l y as a p a rty or pol iti c a l
m easure S O a l s o they O ppo sed the S editi o n s b i ll a b i ll i t m i g ht
b e said i n par i ma ter i a carri ed i n the sa m e mo nth a n d the b i ll
fo r i mp ris on m en t with o ut tri al wa s c o nti n ued b y an o ther statute
in th e sam e sessi o n t o March in th e follo win g year A nd this
i s the sc op e o f Par l i a m entary po wer o v er th e p rivi l e g e o f th e
W rit o f H ab eas C o r p us
T he Ha b eas C o r p us A c t o f En gl a n d with this d is c reti on ary
p o wer o f Par l iam en t a ffo rds no a n a log y fo r the United S tates
wh o have qual ified the p rin c i ple s o as to secure it a g ainst the
dis c reti o nary po wer o f any bo dy ex c e p t wh en the n ati o n i s
fo r c ed away fr om i ts no rma l an d orderl y c o nditi on b y i n ter n a l
war re b e ll i o n , o r i n v asion I n such a con diti o n the go vern
m e n t c ann o t — p r op er l y s p eakin g wi ll n o t an d c a n n o t ex te n
—
s i vel
a
b
use
th
e
ex
c
e
p
ti
o
n
S
u
c
h
dis
o
rders
as
re
b
e
ll
i
on
o
r
y
in vasi o n , t o u c h the l ife o f the go ver nm ent itse l f ; and the e x
c epti o n can no t b e
either usefull y o r con s ti tu ti on a lly a ppl ied
e x c e p t t o defe at a sy mp athy with d o mest ic o r forei gn e n em ies
t o th e o verthr o w o f th e fu n da m ent al institu ti on s o f the p e opl e
Mo re o f this con s ti tu ti on a l d e p e n de nc e o f the exc e p ti on u pon
reb e ll i o n p resent l y
T here i s an o th er p a rti c u l a r i n whi c h i t i s n e c essary t o dis
re g ard the a n alog y o f the En gl ish l aw , a p arti c u l ar i n whi c h w e
,
,
.
,
,
-
-
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
20
are most li k e l y to b e l ed as t ray and have been in fact to s om e
ext e nt l ed astray by supp o sing an ana l ogy where t h ere is none
I t i s t he man n er i n w hi ch th e priv i l e g e of th e W rit is o verrul e d
in Engl and and w hich must b e don e b y a L e gis l at i v e Act by
an A ct of Par l i ament I t can be done i n n o ot he r way
T h e H ab e as Corpus Act o f Char l e s II is an Act o f Par l ia
ment and by t he C o nst i tuti o n o f En gl and n o thi n g b ut a su bs e
quent Act o f Par l i am e nt can abo l i sh restra i n o r im p a i r such a
p r e ce di n g A ct Th ere is n o Const i tuti o n above i t t h at im p arts
an aut ho r i ty to arrest i ts Op e ra tion in any c ase n o r upon the
o ccurr e nce o f any event whatev e r exce p t i n t h i s o n e way by a
subs e quent A ct of the sam e body wh i ch enact e d it I f a wr i tt e n
C onstitut io n in Eng l an d superi o r t o an Ac t o f t h e L e g i s l ature
—if ev e n t he sta t ut e o f 3 1 C harl es I I — o r any sub s e qu e nt Act
o f Parli ament had d e c l ared that the pr i v i l e ge of t he W rit o f
H abe as C o rpus s h all n o t be suspended unl e ss when in cas e s o f
r eb ell i on o r i nvas i on t he pub l ic safety may r eq u i r e it and under
suc h a provi s i on i t had been un i form l y he l d that Par l iam ent
al on e cou l d dec l ar e the fa ct o f r ebe ll i on o r invasi o n and th e
fa ct of p ub l i c danger o r w h at t h e pub l i c safe ty required ther e
w o ul d have b een an anal o g y w hi c h we m i ght e xam i n e and c o n
s id er
But under o ur d ifferent Const i tutions th e re i s n o ne
T h ere is n o thin g o f h i gher auth o rity i n En gl and than the S tatute
o f 3 1 C har le s I I e xcept a subse q u e nt statut e ; and unt i l such
subsequent sta t ute i ts pr o v i si o ns ar e o f ab s ol ute auth o ri t y o ver
K i ng and Privy Counci l and S e cretar i es of Stat e and e very
b ody T hat statute g i ves t o e v e ry bo dy committed t o p r i s o n for
any cr i m i na l o r suppos e d cr i mina l matter w h ich a subsequent
statute e xt e n d s t o ev ery c o mm i tment n ot on l y a ri gh t t o t h e
W rit of H ab e as C o rpus but a right t o imm e d i ate bai l o r speedy
t r i al or d ischarge fro m imprisonment Th e statute c o ntains
n o exc e pti o n whatever
N othing b ut a su b sequ e nt statute c an
ma ke an exception Th er e i s no gr o und o r p l ac e t o argue that
t he K i ng s power t o watch o ve r th e pub l i c safe ty an d t o prov i de
for i t by a l l th e m e ans a t h i s disp o sal o r his aut h or i ty t o pr o
c l aim r e be ll i on o r invas io n o r ev e n t o call ou t t he Mi l i tia h as
an y t h e l east virtu e to stay any part of t he O pe rati o n o f t h e
H ab e as C orpus Act Th e C o nst it ution o f Eng l and is ab so l ut e l y
s i l ent where the Co nst i tut i on o f t he U n i ted S tates has at l ea s t
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
-
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
’
,
,
,
.
,
,
21
s po ken T he C on sti tuti o n o f En gl and i s mo re than si l e n t in
thi s m atter ; i t says that nobo dy b ut Parl ia me n t sh all s p eak i n
re g ard t o it
O u r C on stituti o n o n the c on tr ary s p eak s t o a ll su bo rdin ate
“
auth o rities c reat e d b y it I t d o e s n o t say the Wr i t of H a bea s
”
”
“
o r the H a beas C orpu s A ct sha ll n o t b e sus p ended
C orpus
a W rit an d A c t o f L e gi s l ative o rdinati o n wh ethe r m ade o r t o
b e m ade an d p resum a bl y t o b e re p eal ed o r sus p e n ded b y simi l ar
auth o rity o n l y ; b ut i t s p eak s o f the pr i vi lege o f the W rit b y o ne
w o rd comp rehendin g th e wh ol e p r o te c ti on o f th e p ri nc i pl e a n d
de cl ares that i t m ay b e s uspen ded ; b y this on e w o rd s uspen ded
a l s o co m p rehendin g b y the e xce p ti o n a ll tem po rary and oc ca si o na l
disturb anc es b y i mp riso n m ent b y denia l de l ay o r han g in g u p
fo r a seas o n S us p en si o n i s a u thor i z ed b y the C o n stitu ti o n b y
the sam e c l ause whi c h g uarantees th e p rinci pl e ; and as the ex
p ress i o n o f the p rin c i pl e in cl udes all its ri g hts th e e x p ressi o n o f
the e xc e p ti o n inc l ude s a ll tem po rary de l ay s and denia l s o f the
ri g h ts which are in cl ud ed in the ex c e p ti o n T h e C on stituti o n
is its elf the a u thor i ty a n d a ll that remains is t o execu te i t in th e
c o nditi o ned c a se
I n re g ard therefo re to the qua l ified ri g ht o f b ein g e xe mp t
fr om im p ris o nm ent with o ut trial un l ess i n c ases of re b e ll i o n
o r inv as i o n whe n the p ubl ic safety req uires su c h im p ris on
m ent we mus t di s c a rd En gl ish ana log y T h e C o nstituti o n O f
the Un ite d State s mus t b e j ud g e d b y itse l f b y i ts o wn di s tr i bu
ti o n and o rdi n ati on o f the po w e rs o f G o vernm ent b y the jeal
o u s i es o r co n fid en ces which a pp ear in it b y its o wn l a ng ua g e i n
fin e and no t b y the En gl is h C o nstituti o n o r b y the po we rs o f
Par l iamen t
T here i s sti ll an o ther p art i c u l ar i n which we m ust g uard
a g ain st En gl ish ana log y when w e co m e t o e xami n e the questi o n
o f po wer un der t he H a b e as C o rp us c l au
I t has a l re a dy b ee n su gg ested that th e g reat m ot ive o f En g
l a n d fo r p ressin g th e Ha b e as C o rp us p ow e r in to its p resen t co n
diti o n was j ea lo usy o f the Cr o wn I t was this feel in g as e very
on e kn o ws that l e d Par l ia m en t i n the l 6 th Ch ar l es I t o redu c e
th e Kin g s p o we r o f de t a iner b y warrant expr es s ly t o th e sa m e
rank as that o f any subj e c t o f the re a l m I t o perat ed with m o re
than the sa m e fo r c e at the clo se o f C har l es
wh o m the nati o n
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
’
.
,
,
,
,
’
,
.
,
22
no t tw e nty years b e for e and from th ei r undoubt e d pr e fe r e nc e of
h e r e d it ary m o narc h y ha d r e ca ll ed from ex i l e to t h e t h ron e
Eng l and d e l i berat e ly pr e fer r e d h ere d it ary m onarc h y w it h a ll it s
p o we r s and d a ng e rs to any o the r form o f go vernm e nt ; bu t i t
was th e sens e o f the s e d angers sp e ciall y e xc i ted near t h e c l os e o f
—
h i s r ei gn b y t he occurrenc e o f a particul ar cas e J en k s s cas e
an d by t he prosp e ct of a Roman C ath ol i c succ e ss or i n t h e King s
b r o ther the D uk e o f " ork afterwards J ames II th at i mp e ll e d
th e m to d ri v e h om e as i t w e r e ev ery stak e t h a t w o u l d prevent
th e K i ng o r hi s j udge s o r o fficers from r emov i n g t he barrier o f
t he H ab e as C o r pus Act fr om b et w e en th e K i ng and t h e p eop l e
The author o f t he 31 Ch arl e s II Lor d S h aftesbu ry wou l d have
al tog ethe r e xc l u de d t he succ e ss o r t he D uke of " ork from th e
t h ron e b y a c t o f Par l i am e nt ; an d s o wou l d the H ous e o f C om
mons t h a t passed t he H ab e a s Co rpus Act i f t he vot e of that
h o use al on e ha d b ee n suffic ie nt B u t th e H ous e o f Lords c o ul d
no t b e broug ht to c oncur
N e xt t o the benefi t o f e x c l us i on wa s th e be n e fit o f th e H abeas
C orpus Act ; an d th e y pass ed i t wi th as l itt l e r e sp e c t fo r th e
Common Law pr i nc i p l e and wi t h as much r egard for t he ir o wn
p o wer as any Par l i am e n t t hat e v e r sat ; fo r i n th e v e ry n e xt
y e ar aft er t h at Act the H ouse o f Commons b y its own aut ho r i ty
an d b y t he sp e ak e r s warrant se ize d i n a ll pa r ts o f Eng l and and
impr i son ed mu l t i tud e s w h o h a d da re d to expr e ss i n th ei r ad
dr e ss e s to Cha r l es th ei r d ee p a bhor r en ce of t ho s e wh o had o ffe n
i
mportun
e
d
h
i
m
T
hey
wer
e
ca
ll
e
d
s i vel
t
o ca ll a Par l i am e nt
y
a bhor r er s
The Pa rl i am e nt d r e a de d th e King s p o w e r an d l ov e d
t hei r o wn m or e th an t hey l oved th e gen e ra l l ib erty o f the sub
j cet ; and thei r fe ars wer e v e ry r e asonab l e
B u t i n r e gard to the p o wer of t h e Pres ide nt as the draft o f th e
Const i tut i on h a d subs t ant i ally s e ttl ed i t b y maj or c o nsent be fore
t he H ab e as C orpus c l aus e was prop o s ed t h e r e was absol ut ely n o
t hi ng in the pow e rs o f th e Offic e w
hi ch coul d us tly e xc i te eal o u sy
that h e m i gh t abuse t h e pow e r o f susp e nd ing t h e H ab eas C o rpus
pr i v i l eg e w i th a v i ew to e n l arg e hi s oth e r pow e rs T h e Pr e si
de nt h as n o pow e rs that can b e ab u sed or e n l arge d by himsel f ex
c e pt w it h mo r e d an g e r to hi mse l f than t o th e c ountry E l ected
di r e ctly or i nd i rec tly b y t he p eo p l e for a sh o rt t e rm of years
unab l e t o veto a l aw o f C ongress i f two t hi rds o f e a c h Ho use
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
’
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
-
23
sha ll c on cur i n p assin g i t a g ainst his advi c e —u n abl e t o m ake
war o r t o arm a s ol dier o r to ca ll fo rth th e m i l itia fo r any p ur
po se o r t o b ui l d a shi p o r en l ist a sai lo r o r m ari n e—unabl e t o
m ak e a treaty un l ess tw o thirds O f the S en at o rs p r ese n t co n c ur
o r to a ppo in t an a mb assad o r
m inister co nsul j ud g e o r a n y
o th er o ffi c er with o ut the advice and con se n t O f th e Se n at e u n
l e ss i t m ay b e i nf er i or ofli cer s , if C o n g ress sha ll c h oo s e t o g ra n t
him th e po wer —c o mmander in c hief o f the ar m y b ut with o ut
po we r t o ar m a s ol dier— and o f th e navy b ut u n a bl e t o b ui l d a
shi p— com ma n der a l s o o f th e m i l iti a o f the S tates
C o n g ress
sha ll see fi t t o ca ll th e m int o the servi c e of th e United S tates
unab l e to adj o ur n C o n g ress un l ess bo th H o uses disa g ree — a n d
i mp ea c ha bl e fo r any mi sc o ndu c t i n Offic e b y the H o use o f Re p
res en ta ti ves and tria bl e and p u n isha bl e b y the S e n ate b ey o nd
th e po wer of p ard o n —thi s is the array o f Presidentia l po w ers
a s the draft Of the C o nstitutio n su b stan ti a ll y p resented th em
whe n th e Ha b ea s C o r p us cl aus e was p r opo sed an d c arried W e
c ann o t b e sur p ri sed that in vie w o f this schem e a n emine n t
E n gli sh state sm a n an d m an o f l etters has said th at o ur C o n sti
“
t u ti o n o f go ver n men t ex hi b its
th e feeb l est E x e c utive p erh a p s
”
e ver kn o w n i n a c ivi l i z ed co m m unity
B u lwer Lytton has said
thi s after seein g th e C o nstituti o n o n its p rinted p a g es M de
We
T ocqu evi lle h as said the sa m e in m o re m easured terms
wh o are l ivin g u n der i t kn o w th at i n the co urs e o f seve n ty years
n o President b ut W ashin g t o n co ul d h av e ob tai n ed th e o ffi c e fo r
a third term o f fo ur years b y the use o f a l l the po wer o f the
O ffic e wheth er i n war o r p eace o r b y the d ev o ti o n o f his p atri o ti c
services W heth er W ashin g ton c o u l d h av e ob tain ed it remains
a n h ist o rica l d o u b t His p ruden c e a n d his ex p eri en c e o f th e
o ffi c e withdrew h i m fr o m th e ca n vass J ea lo usy o f th at o ffic e
d urin g th e ear l ier p ar t O f the C on venti on and in certain o f th e
St ates b efo re th e ad op ti o n of th e C o nstituti o n b y nin e S tates
w as a t op i c with those wh o did n o t wish any C o n stituti o n o r
U n i o n ; b ut fo r six ty years at l eas t i t has b ee n b ey o nd any sen
si bl e m an s po wer o f fa c e t o p r o fe ss it g rave l y
I t i s b ut reas o n a bl e t o g iv e wei g h t t o this c o nsiderati on when
the po wer of a ppl yin g th e ex c e p ti o n shall b e con sidered
T he Conve n ti o n which p re p are d the C on stituti o n were aware o f
a ll th e c ir c umsta nc es whi c h have b ee n no tic ed —the u n iversa l ity
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
.
,
24
t he Common L aw princ i p l e a n d th e ne ce ssity o f e x cepti o n t o
i t in tim e s o f great pub l i c d i s o rder an d v iol e nc e w he n war sho u l d
be w i thi n t h e c o untry and t h e p ub l i c safet y p l aced i n j eopar d y
as w e ll as the o rdi nary cours e o f j usti c e impeded The y were
awar e al so o f th e mann e r in wh i c h t h e C o nst i tut i on o f Eng l and
und er the Statute o f Charl e s I I ha d exp o sed t he pr i nc i p l e to
dang e r o us pr ej ud i c e by t he d i s c r eti onary power Of Par l i ament ;
and t h ey de e m ed it wis e to q ual i fy th e pr i nc i p le i ts e l f s o as t o
pr o tect t h e safe ty o f t h e pub l i c i n a s e as o n o f great d i s ord e r
and y e t t o p r e vent i ts d e fe at by any p o wer in any other c o nd i
ti o n o f t h e c o untry Th e Comm o n L aw pri ncip l e was su gge sted
i n t h e Convent i on i n ful l un i versal ity wi tho ut e xc e pt i on of any
k i n d and three Stat e s adhered to i t in th eir fina l v o te ; but t he
maj ority de em e d it bett e r fo r t he Un i on to qua l ify and abridg e
t he pr i nc i p l e c o nst i tutionall y b y ann ex ing t o i t an e x cept io n
m o st strict ly lim i te d to the o c curr e nc e o f certai n gr e at and cr i t ica l
d i sturbances i n t h e p ub l i c conditi o n o f the c ountry and t o l e t
th e pub l i c safety at t he times of such d i sturb ance and in th o s e
o nl y o verru l e th e princ i p l e fo r th e t i me and seas o n
Thei r de partur e fr o m t h e En gl ish Constituti o n an d ru l e a l to
geth e r s e t t he m as i d e as a safe analo gy in the app l i ca t i o n O f th e
c l aus e fina ll y adopted
T h e h i stor y of th e c l ause is n ot with o ut inter e st and pretty
str on g app l icat i on
T h e Convent io n to fo r m th e C o n sti t uti o n b e gan its sessi o n on
th e 1 4th M ay 1 78 7 o n wh i ch d ay th e re was n o busin e ss do n e
nor an y subs eq uent mee ti n g unti l t he 2 8 th M ay O n t h e fol
l owing day t he 29 th M ay M r Char l e s P i nc k n ey o f Sou t h
”
“
C ar ol i na e x hi b i ted a P l an o f a F e d er a l Co nstituti o n
t h e 6 th
art i c l e o f w hi c h c o ncern i n g t he l e g i s l atur e contain e d t h e fo l
l o w i ng para g rap h :
A ll l aws r egu l at i ng commerc e sh all requ i re the ass e nt o f two
t hi r d s of the memb e rs pr e sent i n each h o use T he Un i t e d S tat e s
shall n ot grant any ti t l e of n o b i l ity T he l egi s l a ture o f t he
Un ite d States s h a ll pass n o l aw o n t he subj e ct o f r e l i g i on n o r
t o uch i ng o r ab ri dg i ng t he l i b e rty o f th e press ; n or s ha ll the pr i
vilege of the Wr i t of H a bea s C or u s ever be s u s en ded ex c ep t
p
p
”
in case o f rebe ll i o n or invas i on
Th e d i ffe rent subj e cts of thi s parag raph have n o comm o n r e
of
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
26
T h i s it has been remarked was a d e viat io n from the Eng l i sh
Co nst i tut ion and fr o m the Par l i am e ntary pract ic e o r course a l so
It i s a j ust
N o r i s the var i at i on fact i t i ous or fanc i ful m e r e l y
po l iti ca l express i on of t h e pr i nc i p l e o f th e un i versa l p er s o na l
l ib e rty of fre em e n un de r l aws o f t h e i r o wn mak i ng qua l i fi e d by
t he i nt erna l p e r i l s o f t he i r own gov e rnm e nt W ar g e nerall y
was n o t to b e a l i m i tat i on o f t h e pr i vi l e ge and ought n o t to b e
W ar b ey ond the l im i ts of a coun t ry l e av e s t h e courts and th e
l aws o f the country i n full Op e rati o n ; but invas io n by a for eign
arm y o r r eb e ll i o n aga i nst th e gov e rnment ov e r th rows or d i s
I n such
t urb s bo t h the courts and th e execut i on o f the l aws
cas e s th e persona l l ib e rty Of the fr ee m e n o f a c o untry be comes
s e condary to the pub l i c l ib e rty o f the n a t ion and must y ie l d for
t he t i me t o a h i ghe r i nt e r e st and a hi ghe r pr i nc i p l e th e pub l i c
safe ty As t he C onst i tut i on finall y r e port ed says it must y ie l d
“
t he pub l i c safe ty may requ i r e
s o far i n p a rt i cu l ar i nstanc e s as
”
it
The pr i ncip l e of the C ommon Law is not t he p ri ncip l e o f
t he Cons ti tutio n o f t h e Un i t e d S tates The pr i nc i pl e O f th e
Engl i s h Const it ut io n i s n o t o ur F e d er a l p ri nc i p l e O urs i s a
q ua l ificat i on of that pr i nc i p l e univ e rsal and unchangeab l e in i ts
app l i cation T h e pr i ncip l e o f the Engl i sh Cons t ituti on i s uni
v e rsa l i n nam e and c h an ge ab l e at the p l e asure o f Parl i am e nt
W h eth er Mr Pinckn ey was t he first to e xpr e ss th i s l imitat i on
o f th e r i ght o f p e rsona l l i b e rt y i s n o t mat e r i a l
He w o ul d be
mor e e n tit l e d to cr e d i t fo r fi rs t i ntroducing i t w ith hi s P l an O f a
F ed e r a l Cons ti tut i on i f h e had n o t subsequ e ntl y app e ar ed wi l
l i ng t o t hrow i t away
The i mport o f h i s c l ause i s n e v e rthel e ss i n o n e r e sp e ct oh
scur e b y it s i mp erfe ct grammati cal d e p e nd e nce u po n th e pr e vious
c l aus e I t expr e ssl y p r o hi b i t ed t h e L egi s la tu r e fr om passing any
l aw o n the subj ect o f r el i g i on o r touch i ng o r abridg i ng t h e
l ib e rty o f t h e press ; an d t he n un i t i ng the c l ause wi th wha t pre
ce d e d i t b y r e peatin g t h e sam e conj unction n o r h e s e par a ted i t
by a c h ang e o f p h ras e w hi ch i s abso l ut e in i ts m e a n i ng an d n o t
r el at i v e to the L eg i s l a ture ; n or shall th e p ri v i l e g e o f th e W rit
o f H ab e as C o r pus ev e r b e susp e nd e d e xc e p t i n c a s e o f re b el l ion
”
o r i nvas i o n
But from t he fo rm wh i c h M r P i n ck n ey s p r oposi ti on assumed
aft e rwards o n th e 2 0th Au g ust i t se em s t o b e fre e fr o m doubt
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
.
.
,
,
,
27
o twi th standing th e obliquity o f th e lan g ua g e a n d the im p er fe c t
gramm atical structure of the senten c e that the Le g islature was
inte n ded by th e m over to b e the susp ending as well as the n o n
s u sp endin g p ower ; that is to say that the L e g isl ature was to b e
the rein that shoul d ho l d back or l et free another power w ith
wh o m th e ex ecutive fun c tion o f arrestin g an d imprisonin g m u st
remain The Le gi s l ature was to hold o n t o or t o rela x the p ri
It i s n o t improba b l e therefo re tha t Mr P inck ney us ed
vi l ege
”
“
the word suspended in th e sam e sen se with th e l e g a l ar g um ent
which has been already adverted to
I t i s un n e c essary to mak e further remark upo n th e clause
whi ch is c o ntained in Mr P i n ck n ey s Plan o f a Federa l C o n
”
stitution as i t did no t com e u p directly a sec o n d tim e
T hree month s afterwards o n th e 2 0th Au g ust 1 78 7 th e firs t
sub se qu en t o c casion in which th e Hab eas C or p u s c lause was men
t i o n ed in th e C onvention an d b ut ab out thre e week s b e fo re the
fi nal adj ournm e n t o f the b ody Mr Pinckney m oved no t the
”
ado p tion o f his Pl a n o f a Federa l Constituti o n b ut a num b er
o f pr o positions t o b e referred to the C o mmittee o f D etail
On
this occasion he g ave to his H ab eas C o rpus p ropositio n the fo l
l o wing form :
“
The privileges and b enefits o f th e i Vr i t o f Hab eas C o rp us
shall b e enj oyed i n this governm en t in the m os t e x p editious a n d
ampl e manner ; and shall n ot b e suspended by the L eg i s la tu r e
e xcep t upon th e mos t u rgen t a n d pr ess i ng occa s i on s an d for a
”
limite d tim e n o t ex c eedin g
m onths
T hi s p ropositio n i ndicated a disp o sition to th r o w awa y that
strikin g an d im portant qualifi cation o f the p ri vile g e which h ad
b een expressed in his P la n o f a Federa l C onstitution and t o
substitut e fo r i t the discretion of th e L e g isl ature on the mos t u r
and
en
t
g
pr es s i ng occ a si on s the omnipotent dis c reti o n o f Parlia
m e n t ; an d i t would have b r o u g ht th e Constitution i n thi s r e
spec t into p erfec t i dentity with th e Constit u tion o f E n gl and
with a ma xi mu m l im itation of tim e in stead o f the p l easure of
Parliam en t
It i s this form o f his pro p osition which indi c ates M r P i n ck
n e y s de si g n in its o ri gl n a l form to give C o n g ress the power o f
a uthorizin g susp ension
; an d certainly if the o c casion s of its ex
er c i s e were to b e i n de n i te h owever u rgen t and pre ssin g a s h e
fi
n
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
’
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
’
,
,
,
28
nothing would have exceeded the incongruity of
committing such a p ower to the Executive department o f the
government We shall see how by makin g the power perfectl y
definite and limited by conditions o f executive cogni zan c e and b y
con s ti tu ti on a l legislation in the clause which made it the refer
ence to Congress became an incongruity and was abandoned
When the subj ect was finall y brought up in the Convention
o n the 2 8 th August we have from Mr Madison but a brief and
meagre statement o f what was said upon the occasion Indeed
Mr Madison s minutes hardl y deserve the name of Debates in
”
the Federal Convention which has been given to them T hey
are a s y nopsis o r general view m ore or less full or impartial ao
cording to the disposition o f the writer an d to his o wn position
as a m ember o f the bod y ; and though the men of this Convention
probabl y re flected more and spoke less than an y public bod y o f
its importance will ever do again in this countr y yet no one can
read Mr Madison s work with attention without surmising that
o n some occasions much more was said than is recorded ; and that
this probabl y was o n e o f them
The Convention on that day the 2 8 th A u gust were taking up
and acting upon an y m otions either generall y and i n depen
den tly or in amendment o f an y article or section of the proposed
Constitution previousl y reported b y the Committee of Detail as
the delegates were disposed t o su ggest them ; and it is thus that
on a general or independent motion b y Mr Pinckne y the cause
of the debate on the H abe a s Corpus is presented b y Mr
Madison
Mr P i n ckn ey urging the propriet y o f securing the benefit
o f the H ab eas Corpus in the most ample manner moved that it
should not be suspended but on the most urgent occasions and
”
then onl y fo r a limited time not exceeding twelve months
Probabl y this motion was exactl y in the form last proposed b y
him filling the blank with twelve Mr Madison does n o t quote
an y part o f Mr P i n ck n ey s remark s with inverted commas
MR R U T LE D G E was for declaring the H ab eas Corpus i h
violate H e did n o t conceive that a suspension could ever b e n e
”
ces s ar
at
the
same
time
in
all
the
S
tates
y
This cannot have been all that Mr R utledge said The con
elu sion o f his remark is in apparent c ontradiction to the begin
no
w proposed ,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
’
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
’
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
i g whi c h ex p ressed his op inio n that the Hab eas C o r p u s sh o ul d
b e declared i n vi ol able T he latter par t seem s to r e g ard s u s pen
s i o n of the Wr i t o r A ct as th e o bj e c t and as b ein g either l o c a l
o r g e n era l and no t as p ers o na l I t was a cl ear m istak e T he
wh ol e remark is however ob s c ure ; an d there may b e s o m e
reaso n t o dou b t wh ether the reporter s m ind o r th e de l e g ate s
em b ra c ed the te c hn i c al d o ctrin e u p on th e su bj ect
T he two para g raphs thu s ex tra c te d fr o m M r M adiso n s D e
b ates are a ll whi c h they co ntai n o n the subj e c t b e fo re Mr G o u ver
ne u r M o rris m ade a m otio n whi c h disp o sed of th e who l e q uesti o n
I t is im po ssi bl e h o we ver t o b e l ieve th at thi s im po rtan t questi o n
introdu c ed o n the se co n d b u sine ss day of the C o nventi o n and
whi c h had b ee n i n view o f the de l e g ates fo r thre e m o n th s had
re c eived as l ittl e of p rivate c o nsiderati o n as M r Madiso n s work
re p rese n ts i t to have h ad of p u bl i c co mme n t i n th e h o u se
E n o u gh howe v
er is re co rded t o show th at it m u st have b ee n i n
the minds o f the de l e g ates under at l east three aspe c ts : 1 S u s
p en si o n o f th e pri vi lege and n o t o f the Wr i t o r A ct 2 S u spen
sion b y the Le g is l ature and o n l y b y the Le g islat ur e 3 S uspen
si o n general ly an d b y the d e p artme n t tha t w o u l d b e intrusted
i n re b el l ion or i n vasi o n with th e sa fety o f the p ub l i c
I mmediate l y after Mr R utl ed g e Mr G ou vern eu r Mor ri s
“
m ove d t hat the P rivi l e g e of the W ri t o f Hab eas Cor p u s shall
n o t b e susp en ded un l ess where
whe
n i n cases o f re b el l ion or
"
) ”
i n vasi o n the p ub l i c sa fety m ay req u ire it
N o w t o sho w how in co n cl usive and un saf e it i s to i n fer a p ar
ti c ul ar view to C on g ress in thi s m otion o r i n t he cl ause whi ch
it p r opo sed from the posi ti on which is g iven t o th e w o rds i n t he
n inth sectio n of the fi rst arti cl e o f the Co n stituti o n as n o w ar
ran ged which treats o f the legi s la ti ve po wer i t m ay b e foun d on
r e c urrin g t o the Jo u rn a l o f the C onve n ti o n tha t G o u ver n e u r
M o rris m ade the m o ti on expr ess ly an d so i t was ad® t ed b y t he
C o n venti o n as an amendment to th e f ou r th secti o n o f th e eleven th
arti cl e o f th e Co n stit ution as it had b ee n re po rted by th e C o m
mi tt ee o f F ive on t h e 6 th A u g ust an d whi c h was th e Ju d i ci ary
arti c l e "Journa l o f Conventi o n B o st o n 1 8 1 9 p a g e
T he
subseq u ent c h an g e b y a C ommitte e o f S tyle a n d A r r ang emen t
t
his
was
th
e
wh
ol
e
d
u ty of the co mmittee i n the n u m b ers an d
"
)
se c t io n s o f the arti c les was n o t in t e n ded t o c h an g e an d c o ul d
n n
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
’
’
,
,
.
’
.
,
~
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
30
change the import or meaning o f any o f them ; but position
in the intention o f the mover of the clause might have and pro
babl y had a bearing upon its meaning ; and this could hardly
have been an y other than to admonish the udi ci ar y o f a restrain t
upon their power over the Writ which did n o t proceed from Con
gress the body b y which the particular details o f the j udicial
powers were to be made Whatever was his intention the place
assigned b y him to the amendment did as it were express ly
negative the bearing o f Mr P i n ck n ey s motion upon the Legis
n ot
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
’
,
.
l at u r e
.
This motion b y Gouverneur Morris rej ected the reference to
the Legislature of the Union and said nothing o f a term o r time
of suspension Mr Morris had taken up the sub stance o f Mr
P i n ck n ey s proposition in his Plan o f a Federal Constitution
submitted on the 2 9 th May had struck ou t the oblique reference
t o the Legislature which the clause in that Plan had contained as
well as the direct reference t o it contained in Mr P i n ck n ey s mo
ti o n on the 20th August and again on the 2 8 th August an d pre
sented i t in the words above given
MR W I LS O N doubted whether in an y case a suspension could
be necessar y as the discretion now exists with the j udges on
”
most important cases to keep in gaol or admit to bail
The delegate from Pennsy lvania seems from professional
s o ciations t o have thought the now superannuated discretion of
the j udges in capital cases was a good sub stitute for an y power
o f suspension legislative or executive ; and to have looked at
the suspension referred to as an a ct and a j udicial act dis
peusing with an y interference b y Congress
The entire history of the clause as recorded b y Mr Madison
is thus closed :
“
The first part o f Mr Gouverneur Morris s motion to the
word u n les s was agreed to n em con O n the remaining part
ayes 7; n o North Carolina South Carolina Georgia
Mr Morris s clause is the same which n o w stands in the 9 th
section o f the 1 s t A rticle of the Constitution when being in
,
,
.
.
.
’
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
here w ere fo u r del eg ate s from S o u th C a ro l in a o f w hom three m us t h av e v oted
ag a in s t it P rob ab ly M P inckney was one o f the three as hi s o w n motion was x
c l u ded b y th a t o f M Morri s
T
.
r
.
r
.
.
,
.
e
31
su b stituti o n o f wher e p erhaps b y th e C o mmit t e e on S tyle and
A rran g eme n t
L o oking at this c laus e as i t i s c ontained in the C o ns tituti o n
with th e aid of its sh o rt hist o ry it is the statement of a funda
m ental rule of p ers o nal liberty amon g freeme n i n the United
S tates universal b ut no t u n quali fi ed an d not callin g fo r an y
l egi sl ative action to enfor c e o r ap p ly th e qua l ifyi n g e x c eptio n
T he w o rd L egi s la tu r e whi c h was contain ed in Mr P i n ck n ey s
”
“
Pl a n o f a Fe dera l Constituti o n
an d p r o b ab ly a l s o i n his
m otion whe n the subj e c t was fi nally disp o sed o f was thus ca st
aside an d an en ti r ely n ew form and n ew limitations were g iven to
the p rincipl e ; the qual i fic ati o n or e x c epti o n b ein g fo unded o n
p ublic facts u p o n the oc c urrence o f which the C onstit u tion au
t h o r i z es the susp ension o f th e privile g e by the a c t o f that
p o we r which is c omp etent t o de c ide up on th em
W hat dep artment o r p o wer sh o uld have the a u thori ty t o de
c lare what the p ub l i c sa fety required in su c h a case th e C on
s ti tu ti on n eith er e x p ressly declares n or ex p ress l y intimates by
any word o r words whate ver T he clause w as a sub stitute for
Mr P i n ck n ey s o riginal c l ause whi c h c o ntained the word L eg i s
la tu r e as his secon d pr epos i t i on did als o an d r ej e c te d that
feature o f i t with o u t th e least ambi g uity If th es e p ro p ositio n s
o f M r Pi n c kney in tended t o c onfer this p ower u p on th e Legisl a
t ure th e sub stit u te disclaime d the inten tio n by r ej ectin g i t
The clause has n o ph ra se o r w o rd in i t whi c h either dire c tly
o r by any fai r an d reas o n able i mplicati o n g ives or c on fi nes t his
authority t o Con g ress o r takes i t away from th e E x e c u t ive
T he wh ol e questi o n o f decidi n g with auth o ri ty whe n i n c ase s
of reb ellio n o r i n vasion the p ubli c sa fety req u ire s th e s u spen
si o n o f th e p erson al p rivil e g e o f t he Wri t o f Ha b eas C o rpus is
l e ft by this c lause to the p erson b ody o r p ower i n vested b y
o ther p arts of th e C onstitutio n with th e c ar e of the p u bl i c sa fety
to this intent and e ffe c t in tim e o f r eb e l lion o r invasion T her e
c an b e n o rea s o na b le doub t ab o ut this
We m ay arg u e from th e n ature o f the ri g ht o r fr o m th e gu a
r a n tee whi c h it receives fr o m the fundamental law of th e Uni o n
o r from the c o nditio n i n which the go ver n ment was to b e pla c ed
by internal war from re b ellion o r i n vasi o n that the a u thority
is to b e ex erci sed b y this de p artme n t o f go ver n men t an d n o t by
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
'
,
32
that or b y another ; but we c annot argue reasonably that the clause
itself gives an y color of authority to one department more than
another except as one department o f the government and not
another is more speciall y charged b y other parts of the C o n
n
with
the
care
of
the
public
safety
upon
the
occasio
s ti tu ti on
referred t o ; nor can it b e fairly argued upon principles of
analogy drawn from the English Constitutional o r P a r l i amen
tar y histor y for th e clause is entirel y u n English as it i s trul y
Ameri c an It is u n English because it ties up the Legislative
power as well as all other power ; and it is American because it
is o f American origin and is conservative of personal freedom in
general and also of the public safety in times of imminent inter
nal danger of a S pecific character
The prese n t position of the clause in the Constitution i s no t
of th e least importance A ccording to the J ournal of the C o n ven
tion the clause was o ffered as an amendment to the fourth se c
tion of the article on the Ju di c i ary If position as a section of
an article carries power t o the article then the original motion as
adopted carried power to the J udiciar y and must have regarded
suspension o f the privilege as a udi c i al act and n o t as depen
dent o u a Legislative act The simple and clear language of
the clause is in what it directl y expresses restrictive of all
power in what it inversel y expresses i t is permissive of some
power " and authoritative as to its application in the c o n ti n gen
c ies stated It affirm s the common law principle with an excep
tion for the public safety , thus qualify ing th e absolute rule o f
,
,
,
-
,
-
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
the neg a tion o f po w er b y the cl aus e h a d been compl ete as according to M
Ma di s on s D eb a te s was de s ired b y N orth C a ro l in a S o u th C a ro l in a a nd G eorgi a s o
m u ch the w e aker h a d been the G o v ernment o f the U nited S t ate s to su ppre ss rebe ll ion
a nd the S ta te s none the s tronger except in a bi l ity to rebel w hich i s their w e a kne s
a l s o T h fii m ti v or permi ss i v e po w er in the c l aus e i s s imply a pow er to su ppre ss
reb ell ion or to repe l in vas ion B y a ttrib u ting it to the E xec u ti v e the w ho l e go v er
ment o f the U nion i s org a nic ally s tronger in th a t m w hich h as the m a in l a bor a nd
contro l in both the contingencie s a nd it i s the on ly a rm th a t i s directed b y a s ingl e
e y e I f it h a d been gi v en to C ongre ss not on ly w o u l d it h av e wa nted th a t s ing l e
e y e b u t it w o u l d h av e been l i a b l e to swa y from e xtreme rigor to extreme rel axa tion
b y anti p a th y or s y mp a th y for the con s tit u ent s impl ic a ted in the intern a l wa r ; a nd
w o u l d moreo v er h av e been prod u cti v e o f tho s e agit a tion s w hich m a rk the p
s ion s o f the pri v i l ege b y P ar l i a ment as the y m us t nece ssa ri ly m a rk v y l g repro
T here a re s ome s trik i ng a nd impre ss i v e rem a rk s
t ti v bod y a t su ch a cri s i s
pon the mere neg a tion o f po w er to go v ernment in L
e xce ll ent w ork 0
”
1
i
l
G
C vi L b ty
d S l"
v
m t
en l a rged edition 1 8 59 p 3 72
If
’
1‘
r
,
.
’
,
,
,
,
e a
.
r
a
s
,
,
e
.
,
n
,
ar
,
.
,
,
s u s en
,
,
e
,
s en a
e
ar
e
.
u
,
i
er
er
an
o
o
er n
en
,
IB BE R
,
’
S
,
12
.
.
34
But no instrument moreover permits the interpretation of its
clauses t o be a ffected b y position less than the Constitution of
the United States The m atter of arrangement especiall y as
t o the independent propositions made and agreed to in C o n ven
tion and m o st especiall y as to the Habeas Corpus clause which
was n o t contained in the draft of a Constitution reported b y the
Committee of D etail on the sixth of August when the great
plan and principles o f the three departments had been discussed
and agreed to b y a maj orit y had less consideration than any
o ther subj ect The Committee o n S ty l e and Arrangement was
the best possible ; but though several amendments to parts of
their report were o ffered in the Convention no articulate con
sideration was given to the or der an d position of the diff erent
secti o ns and clauses as reported b y that Committee From the
manner in which the amendments were made to the Constitution
after it was adopted all but the 1 1 th and 1 2 th have n o position
at all O n e of these was intended to abridge the j udicial power
the other t o alter the mode of electing the President The whole
must have the same meaning wherever the y ma y be placed
Their most natural position is in the same section with the H a
beas C orpus clause as the y ar e uniforml y restrictive
The most important di fferences b etween the Constitutions of
England and the Unite d States i n regard to the H ab eas Corpus
privilege and between th e modes in which an ex c eption t o the
privilege is authoriz ed ma y now b e recapitulated
1 The Constitution o f England prop erl y speaking authori zes
nothing in this respect n ay negatives suspension b y the univer
sal principle of the C ommon Law that there is n o exception
under an y circumstan c es to the right o f bail trial o r discharge
without delay
The C o nstitution of the United States affirms that principle
with one exception and authoriz es a departure from it in that
ex cepted case
2 The voice of Parliament equal in the ears o f the E nglish
Courts and more than equal to the voice of the unwritten Con
authori zes Parliament and under what circumstances
s ti tu ti o n
i t pleases to authoriz e a denial o f the privilege
The Constitution o f the United States unchangeable b y C on
gress declares b y its o wn will an ex ception to the privilege and
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
~
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
35
a u th o riz es i t t o b e m ade and th e privi l ege to b e denied fo r a
se ason i n th e e x cepte d cases and in n o others
I n other words Parliam en t authori z es a n ex c eption t o b e
m ade dep endent for ex ecuti o n o n the pleasure o f the C row n
The C o nstitution o f the Unite d S tate s estab lishes the e x c e p tio n
o f reb elli o n o r i n vasi o n an d the requirem ent o f the p u bl i c sa fety
and au t hori z e s th e ex c epti o n t o b e ex e c uted b y the bod y th at i s
under the Con stitutio n emp o wered t o dec l are these facts ; b ut
wi th o ut sayin g by what de p artm e n t it shal l b e m ade
3 Under the C o n stitutio n o f E ngland a l aw o f P arl iamen t
alon e can mak e an e x c eptio n in En gl and to b e a p plied as Par
l i am en t dire c ts
I n the United S tate s th e ex cepti o n is m ade by
the Co n stituti o n w ith authori t y to on e of th e de p artm ents t o
app l y it without e x p ressly sayin g whi c h
4 I n En g land th e denia l o f th e ri g ht o f b ail tria l o r dis
c har g e i s the j oint e ffe c t o f the S tatute an d o f the A c t o f arrest
and detentio n b y the Cr o wn
In th e U n ite d S tates i t i s the j o in t e ff ec t of the C o nstitutio n
a n d o f the arrest an d dete n ti o n by the dep artm ent
whi c h i s
c o mpetent to order i t
If th e clau se in the C o nstituti o n had said o f th e W R I T of
Hab eas C o rpus o r o f a H abe as C or p us A C T ena c ted o r to b e
ena c ted wha t it says o f the P R I V I LE G E o f the W rit there wo uld
have been some g r o un d for the Ar g um ent that a Writ of H abeas
C orpus a n d a Ha b eas C o rpu s Ac t b eing the work o f th e Le g is
l atu re the susp ension o f th e Writ o r A c t shou l d b e made by th e
L eg islature also B ut th e pri vi lege th e per s on a l privilege b ein g
alon e S p ok en of an act o f arrest and detention by the dep art
ment which is com p etent to as certain the co nditions o f th e e x
c e ti o n together with th e e ff ect imparted b y the Constituti on
p
i s su fficient and n o l egis l ative A ct is n e c essary u n less an d
this i s the g i s t of the whole questi o n a l e g is l ative Ac t i s me c es
sary t o asc ertain th e co nditi o ns o f the ex c e p ti o n
T he gi s t o f the questio n s eems then t o b e this whether i t
requires an A ct o f the Le g islature t o de cl are that R eb ellion o r
I n vasi on ex ists in th e Co u n try and that th e p u bl ic safety r e
q u ire s the s u s p e n sio n o f th e p rivile g e If it d o es then Con g ress
a l o n e has the power to pa ss s u c h an A c t : i f i t does n ot the n
the p ower o f en fo r c in g the ex ec u ti o n fal l s n ecess ari l y to the
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
36
E xecutive The j udicial department cannot be the bod y to i n
t erpo s e because its functions are n o t directl y pointed t o an y o f
the facts either R eb ellion o r Invasion or the demands o f the
public safet y on such occasions Indirectl y and in cases o r
j udicial controversies the y might take cogni zance of each of
them
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
This question o f the power of Congress over this matter has
never been decided authoritativel y ; and it has never been argued
with an y care or perhaps argued at all b y a Court or by Coun
sel in Court So far as authority goes it is at this time a
question of the first impression There probabl y has been and
still is a strong professional bias in favor of the power of
Congress p erhaps a ju di ci a l bias if that be possible It was
not eas y to avoid the bias under the in fluence o f English analog y
which some preceding remarks were intended t o disqualify ; b ut
there is nothing on the point that is j udiciall y authoritative
Chief J ustice T an ey s O pinion in Merr y man s case is n o t an
authority This o f course is said in the j udicial sense But it
is n o t even an arg ument in the full sense H e does not argue
the question from the language of the clause nor from the his
tor y of the clause nor fro m the principles o f the Constitution
except b y an elaborate depreciation of the President s ofli ce
even to the extent of making him as Commander i n Chief of
the Arm y called from the States into the servi ce o f th e United
States n o more than a n a s si stan t to the Ma r s ha l s posse : the
deepest plunge of j udicial rhetoric Th e O pinion moreover has
a tone n o t to sa y a ring o f di saflecti o n to the President an d to
the Northern and Western side o f his house which it is not
c omfortable to suppose in the person wh o fills the c entral seat
But this m ay b e the apprehensiveness o f
o f impersonal j usti c e
the reader
The remarkable feature of this O pinion is that fo r proof o f
the President s exclusion fro m the power the C hief J ustice dwells
upon the President s brief term o f o fli ce— his responsibilit y b y
impeachment fo r m alfeasance in o ffic e— th e power of Congress
t o withhold appropriations for the Arm y of which he is Com
mander i n Chief and to disband it if the President uses it for
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
’
’
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
’
,
-
-
,
’
,
.
,
,
’
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
’
,
’
,
,
-
-
,
37
impr op er p ur po ses — his lim ited po wer o f ap po intm en t — hi s
limited treaty m akin g power— his in ability to app o in t eve n i n fe
rio r o ffi c ers unles s he is auth o ri z ed b y Congress to do so Chie f
Justi c e T an ey has el ab orately stated all this with o ut a p pe arin g
t o p er c eive that these very co nsideration s m ay have an d c er
ta i n ly o u ght t o have indu c ed th e Convention to devo l ve up o n
the P resident e xclusively the trust an d p ower o f susp ending or
n o t suspen ding the privile g e in tim e of re b elli o n as h e sh o ul d
think the publi c safety required The c onstitutional limita
ti o ns o f the o ffi c e m ak e the Pre sident the sa fe and th e sa fest de
T here c an b e l ittle dan g er o f
po si tary o f s uc h a discretion
ab use from an o fli ee o f such po wers I t w as th e g reat power o f
a " ing o f E ngland that w as th e o perative motive wi th P arlia
m ent for taking th e p ower o f suspe n si o n fr o m him ; and th ey
have l e ft i t in a body that is o f e qua l p ower under the C on s ti tu
ti o n an d apparently o n its way to greater
Chie f Justice T aney quotes the l an g ua g e o f o n e who m he
”
j ustly c al l s his great predecessor a s sitii n din g in plac e o f ar
u men t and o f other authority with him ; an d i f that p redecess o r
g
in a c ase p roper l y brin g in g up the p o in t had disc ussed it a fter
ar g umen t b y counsel as h e discusse d a l l other c on stituti on al
q u esti o n s so br ought up for j ud g m ent all would h ave been silen t ;
an d
f actogu e hi e fin e there w o uld h ave b een rest to the q ues
tion H e too that g reat j udge and statesm an ,had his bias
thou g h i t was all o n the side o f th e Con stitution an d o f its due
o p eration in al l parts ; b ut with his vigorous m ind and p ure
heart he drew him self up ere c t t o the elimination o f th at a n d
every o ther b i a s when h e pron o u nce d j udg ment T here was
n othin g thwa r t in h is n ature
The sam e strai g h t an d l o ng lim b s
o f bo dy a n d min d whi c h h e had when h e first drew his youth ful
sword i n defen ce o f his country he continued to have to the l ast
sands of his patriarchal l i fe It i s th e oc c asi o n o f dee p g rie f
that he did n o t live to han d l e this a n d an oth er question o f C on
s ti tu ti o n al La w that m ore th a n a l l o th ers h av e agitated thi s
nati o n
His an alys i s and a u th o rity would h ave settled them
b o th forever
B ut the l anguage o f Chie f Justice Marsh all whatever b e its
m eanin g was not used in a case which b rought up th e question
T he case o f E xpar te B olma n in 4 C ran c h could n o t brin g up
-
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
‘
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
38
the question whether the President or Congress had the power
of suspending the privilege o f the Writ in cases o f rebellion o r
invasion There was n o reb ellion nor invasi o n at the time and
no suspension o f the privilege b y either Congress or the Presi
dent
The question then before the C ourt the first question i n E x
was
wh
ether
the
Supreme
Court
having
no
a r e Bolman
p t
original j urisdiction of the case could issue a Writ of H abeas
Corpus to bring up the bod y of Bolman and the record o f his
commitment b y the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia
The Court wa s somewhat divided upon the point and the writ
was issued two j udges o u t o f the five dissenting ; but the man
ner in which it was argued not at all th e necessities of th e case
induced the Chief J usti ce to sa y that if at an y time the public
safety should require the suspension of the power vested b y this
Act "th e J udiciar y Act o f
in the Courts of th e United
States it i s for the L egislature to say s o That question de
pends o n political considerations on which the Legislature are
t o decide
Until th e Legis l ative will be expressed this Court
”
can onl y see its duty and must obe y the laws
Perhaps there i s nothi n g in this language that taken wi t h
referenc e to the case is open to exception The power to i ss u e
the W r i t was the question ; an d as the Legislature had given
this power to the Court it was apparentl y reasonable t o sa y
that the Legislature onl y could suspend that power The whole
language does however say further that if the pu bli c s af ety
should require the suspe n sion of the powers vested in the Courts
adverting perhaps t o th e lan guage of the H ab eas Corpus clause
in the Constitution it was fo r the Legislature to say so
But there was nothing before the Chief J ustice to raise the
distinction between Congress and the President ; n or between
the pr i vi lege o f the Writ as descriptive of a personal right and
the Wri t itsel f as authorized b y law ; nor between the O peration
o f the Constitution itself and the O peration of a law o f Congress
Certainly Chief J ustice Marshall would n o t have said that if
the Constitution either expressl y or impliedl y had given to the
President the power to suspend the privilege h is Act would not
b e as e ffectual upon the Courts and upon the law o f Congress
which gave power to the Courts to issue the Writ as an y Act of
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
'
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
39
C o n g ress w o uld b e The p rop er question w o u l d then have b een
b etween t he C o n stitution an d C on g ress an d no t b etween an A ct
I t was how ev er al to g ether o bi ter
o f C ongres s a n d the C o urt
whatever wa s the Chief Justice s m eanin g and was n o authority
th o u g h it is all that Chie f Justice T aney c ites as of ju di ci al de
.
,
.
,
’
,
c i s i on
.
’
Judge S tory s remarks which are a l so re ferred to in Merry
m an s case are o f eve n less wei g ht not fr o m p ers o na l considera
t ions b ut as they ar e th o se of a Comm entat o r an d no t o f a
J u d g e i n his pl a c e T he point of them h o w ever is easi l y tak e n
away
I n comme n ting very b rie fly u p o n a b uses of p ers o na l l iberty i n
E n g land in cl udin g ab u ses by P arliam ent an d of the restrai n t
pl aced upon them by the c l ause in the Con sti tuti o n o f th e U n i
ted S tate s Jud g e S t o ry remark s : H ithert o n o suspensi o n of
“
the W rit h as b een auth o ri z ed by Con g ress sin c e the esta bl ish
ment o f the C o nstit u tio n — I t wo ul d seem as the p o wer is g iven
“
t o C ongr ess "sic ) to s usp en d the Wr i t o f Hab eas C o rpus in case
o f R eb e l li o n o r I nvasion that th e ri g h t to j ud g e whether the
”
exigen cy ha d arisen m ust e xclusi vel y b e l ong t o th at b ody
A s this is printed in Jud g e S t o ry s work th e l ast cla u se which
b egins difli den tly enou g h p roceed s at on c e to do s o meth in g
m o re than to b eg th e q u esti o n It dem ands o r ex t o rts i t The
very q u esti o n is whether th e po wer i s given to C ongr ess C er
t ai n ly n o power i s g iven i n term s to any b ody to susp en d the
T here is m o re in the same senten c e on which i t is n o t
WR IT
n ecessary to rem ark
I n the absen ce then o f authority u po n the po in t it is n eces
s ary to repeat —tha t th e c lause in th e Co n stit u tion u se s a wel l
u nderst o o d p hrase to ex p ress a we l l known meanin g i n depen
I t means that bail trial o r dis c h ar g e
den tl y o f al l l e g al forms
fr o m imp risonme n t sha l l n o t b e denie d t o any freema n ex c e p t
i n a c ertain de scription o f case ; b ut that when tha t c ase shal l
o ccur it m ay b e de n ied for a seas o n if the p u bl i c sa fety r e
quires it
Con g ress under t he C o n sti t u ti o n mi g ht ad op t any fo rm o f
j u di c ial relie f and endow its j udi c ial d epartmen t a cc ordingly
”
or the
the c ivi l l aw pr oc ess
d e homi n e li ber o exhi ben do
”
S p a n ish el despa cho de man ifes taci on
I f Con g ress had take n
,
’
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
-
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
40
either it would not have altered in the least the e ffect of th e
clause in the Constitution The privil ege of the Writ of H a
”
beas Corpus must necessaril y have been understood to assert
the privilege o f relief from imprisonment b y bail trial o r dis
charge
The writ of H abeas Corpus was better known in the States
and therefore most appropriate ; but the privilege i s not i n s epa
boun
d
to
that
The
refer
r abl
o r an y other specific remedy
y
ence to th e Writ was t o describ e the privilege intelligibl y not
to bind it to a certain form
The privilege is guaranteed to all freem en generall y b y the
Constitution ; and the denial for a season authoriz ed
The question is b y whom the denial o r interruption ma y b e
made ; and this must b e decided b y the constitutional powers
o f the di ff erent departmen ts as that instrument h as established
them and as the n ature o f the c onditions requires
T he clause does not b y its necessar y implication give power
t o an y department t o a u thor i z e the suspension o f the privilege
but i t gives power t o su spen d i t in the cases conditioned — that
is t o sa y to den y it temporaril y with the efl ec t declared b y the
Constitution The Constitution itself authoriz es the suspension
under the appointed conditions
The suspension O f the privilege under this constitutional
power b ecomes an executive act and n o t a l egislative act A
power b y th e Constitution t o a u thor i z e the suspension o f a pri
vil ege would be a p ower t o authoriz e it b y legislation and then
the suspension would be an ex ecutive act under the l egislative
authorit y The Constitution itself authoriz ed th e suspension
under conditions and therefore the suspension in the cases sup
posed is an E xecutive Act The same well understood mean
”
“
ing of the pr i vi lege of the Wr i t of H a bea s C orpu s makes the
guarantee o f the privilege mean what i t do es though n o t ex
”
“
pressed and al so m ak es the su spen s i o n of the privilege mean
what i t d o es though not expressed namel y a denial fo r a season
o f b ail trial and discharge Under the power given b y the
Constitution this denial I S an execu ti vec act and it can never
become an y thing but an ex ecutive act
If the con di ti on s under which the Act o f denial fo r a season
is executed do of themselves require legislation o r are legisla
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
-
.
,
,
'
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
42
If this power is devolved b y the Constitution upon the Presi
dent no one can doubt that if the President were to suspend
the privilege o f an y person excep t upon reasonable groun d o f
belief that to bail tr y o r discharge him in that conj uncture
would prej udice the public safety in the ver y matter o f the r e
b ellion it would be unconstitutionall y suspended and b e a t
tended b y the grave responsibilit y which the Constitution asserts
Thi s i s the Constitution al asp ect o f the susp ension of th e
privilege of th e Writ o f H abeas Corpus and of the public safety
whi c h is concerned in th e ex ercise o f the power
No w to ascertain whether as to these two m atters o f rebellion
and the public safet y as a ffected b y it the P residen t i s o ffi ciall y
competent to decide and declare them there is no necessit y to
anal y z e the powers o f the E x ecutive with an y elaboration That
the duties o f the President t o tak e care that the laws be faith
full y ex ecuted and to defen d and protect the C onstitution as
well as to support it and both t o decide the fact of rebellion
and to measure the danger of the public arising from it and
what th e public safet y requires in this behalf do belong to the
E xecutive ofli ce o f the President we have the co n stant and con
tinned voice of the L egislature the voice o f the law itself for
six ty five y ears from the ver y nex t session o f Congress after
the suppression o f the Western Insurrection in 1 79 4 down to
the present insurrection raised to its highest power of rebellio n
against the Government
That voice i s t o this e ffect that n ot onl y is it the President s
power t o declare the existence o f rebellion and what the publi c
safety requires in regard to it but that it is his duty
The power to do this is not granted to him b y Congress but
it is assumed by Congress to be both his power and hi s duty t o
exercise i t ; an d ver y large power is given to him upon that
hy pothesis to assist in the execution o f what is manifestl y a
L egislative power namel y the calling forth the Mil itia
It was the assumption o f the Legislature in regard t o i n va
s i on from the ver y first moment that Congress in the dawn o f
the Government provided for c alli n g forth the Militia to repel
invasion or to suppress insurrection that it was the President s
dut y t o declare an d de c ide its existence It was the as s u mp
tion of Congress also in regard to the President s power and
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
.
’
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
.
’
,
48
d u ty t o say what the publi c s a fety required b o th in r ebelli on
and i nvasion B ut in thi s fi rs t A ct o f 1 79 2 i n on e of tho se
sp asm s of j ealo u sy b y whi c h p arty s o m etimes thr o ws l egisl ati on
o u t o f its C o n stitutional p ath wh e n the bill was b efore th e Ho u se
o f R epresentatives an am endm ent o f th e m o st ab surd k ind was
pro po sed to th e se c tion whi c h provided for the case o f I n s u rr ec
ti o n deviating from the cours e adop ted by a p re c eding se c ti o n
i n re g ard to i n va si on namely th at b efore th e p o wer give n t o
the Presiden t b y th e Ac t t o call fo rth th e M iliti a sh o uld ari se
an Associate Justice o r a D istri c t Judge of th e Uni ted States
sh o uld n o tify the P resident that th e l aws o f th e Uni ted States
wer e o p p o sed or the ex ec u ti o n o f th em ob structed b y co m b in a
tion s to o p owerful to b e su pp resse d by th e o rdin ar y course of
j u dicia l p ro c eedings o r by th e p o wers v este d i n the Marsh a l b y
th e A ct — th e pos s e o f the distri cts
It was an ab s u rd p rovi sion ; fo r th e j ud g es c o ul d h ave n o m a
ter i al s for their j udgm ent e xc e p t wh at th ey derived from the
E xe c uti ve departm ent ; and in p oint o f fact b e fore President
Washingt o n c ou l d call o u t th e militia to supp ress the E x ci se I n
surrection i n W estern Penn s yl vani a in 1 794 th e E x e c utive de
par tmen t was obliged to e xhibit the e viden c e of th e fa c t t o J u s
ti c e Wils o n o f the S up rem e C o urt t o obtai n hi s fla t ; h e at the
sam e tim e as a J u stic e o f th e S uprem e C o u rt k n o wing no m o re
a bo ut the m atter p erson al l y o r o ffi cially than any o ther readin g
m an in the country The ins u rre c tion h a d n o re l ati o n t o hi s
o fli c e
A s o n e o f the m o vements adverse to W ashin g t o n in that
s ession o f C o n g ress when p ers o ns whom we m ay rememb er
were la y in g the foundatio n o f the S tate R i g hts party under a
di fl er en t n am e the amendm ent was carried an d this stran g e
feature g iven to the l aw B ut i n th e very nex t session which
fo l l o wed the Western I nsurrection the Ac t o f 1 79 2 was rep ealed ;
an d by an A c t o f 2 8 F eb ruary 1 79 5 which is still in forc e an d
was Preside n t Lin c oln s authority for his re c en t c al l in g fo rth of
th e m iliti a insurrecti o n and in va si o n were p la c ed i n respe c t to
the Presiden t s d ecisi o n upo n th e same footin g
And th e footin g is q u ite r ema rkable The Ac t do es not re fer
the decision t o th e Preside n t n omi n a tim It d o es n o t g r a n t to
the Presid ent th e p ower o f de c iding the q u esti o n o f fact It
a s su mes that i t b e l on g s t o his o ffi c e to d e c ide ea c h of these fa c ts ;
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
,
,
’
.
,
.
.
.
44
“
and simpl y enacts that when the United S tates shall be invaded
”
o r be in imminent danger of invasion
and th at whenever the
l aws of the United States shall be O pposed or the execution
thereof b e ob structed in an y State b y combinations too powerful
t o b e suppressed b y the ordinary course o f j udicial proceedings
o r b y the powers vested in the marsh al b y this Act i t shall be
lawful fo r th e President of the United S tates to call forth the
militia o f such State or o f an y other State o r States as may be
n eces s a ry to s u
r ess such combination s
and
to
cause
the
laws
pp
”
to b e dul y executed
T he President from the ver y nature of
the facts an d the duty of his ofli ce decides them himself ; and
in the case of V a n Ma r ti n v Mo tt 1 2 W h eaten the Supreme
Court decided that the President s j udgment upon th e facts was
conclusive upon ever y bod y H e decides the fact of rebellion
H e declares the number o f militia necessary to cope with the
i nsurrection
And what other department can o fli ci ally declare these fa cts "
W hich department i s to take care directl y and universall y that
th e laws be faithfull y executed an d o ffici all y to know that the
ex ecution is O bstructed b y combinations too powerful to be sup
pressed i n the ordinar y course of j udicial proceedings o r can
anticipate the n ecessit y for armies to suppress rebellion and the
n umber required t o that end or is bound to devote hi s functions
con stantl y to the defence an d protection of the Constitution "
Which department has the whole Ex ecutive power o f the United
States and with it the primar y duty of deciding the facts which
regard the execution of the laws and Constitution of the countr y "
It is m anifest then that there is n o necessit y for a la w o f
Congress to determine the great fact o f rebellion o r invasion
o r the general or particular danger t o the public arising from it
upon which the suspension of the privilege of the Writ depends
From the dawn o f the Government Congress has left these facts
with the President and with him alone
The President s mean s of a cting upon hi s decision the Arm y
N av y and Militia and their numbers duration and support
must depend upon Congress This is their department But
if Congress were to tak e from him the power o f deciding upon
the ex tent and n ecessity o f these m eans i t would invade the
E xecutive D epartment which is to sustain the ex ecution of the
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
’
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
45
l aws
A n d i f th ey w ere to deny him the m ean s th e res pon si
bi l i ty wo uld b e with C o ngress
T he President do es n o t decide the facts co n c lusively up o n
Congress s o as to c o mma n d th e m eans or s o that C o n gress
must foll o w him by pr o vidin g the m eans ; b ut h e de c ides the m
offi cially ; and that i s al l that is n ecessary t o give e ff ec t t o a
warran t o f arrest by him an d a temporary d enia l o f th e p rivi
l e g e o f the Writ o f H abeas C o rpus
There is n o n e c essity for supp o sin g i n r e g ard t o the sa fety o f
th e Country g enera l ly and at l ar g e the g reat m ea s u res whi c h
ar e to express the wisd o m o f the Le g is l ature i n p r o vidin g for th e
stab ility and se c urity of the C o un try an d for th e e xtensi o n o f
its p ower to make it safe a g ainst b oth I nvasi o n an d R e b e l li o n
that th ese m easure s are n o t to c o me from th e Legisl at u re
T hey are L e g islative m easures and must co me from th e L e g is l a
ture alone ; thou g h when they are consummate as l aws they
m u st fall within the E xe c utive dep artme n t i n every p arti c u l ar
in whi ch th at departm e n t has anything t o do w ith them by
forc e o f the laws o r the Constituti o n B ut in the c as e o f a ctu a l
re b elli o n and a ctu a l i nvasion th e de cl arati o n o r p r o clamati o n o f
th e fa c ts is n o t Le g islative but e x e c utive ; an d so i s th e decisi o n
o f what the public safety requi res fo r that is a con cl usi o n o f fa c t
fr o m o ther facts within the range o f the sam e E x e c utive duty
T he p er fectly untrammelled j ud g m ent of the President has
b ee n resorte d to by C o n gress n o t by their o wn Le g is l ative p re
s c ripti o n b ut under the C on stitution t o estimate the dangers o f
insurr e c tion i n al l de g rees o f force up to r e b el lion an d to esti
m ate the military for c es whi c h sa fety req ui res
What d o es
sa fety require b u t that th e o ff endin g for c e o f every des c riptio n
o vert and i n amb ush shall b e unmasked assai l ed an d over
p o were d by a greater forc e o n th e side o f th e Government an d
th e law " A n d th ese are facts an d co nc l usi o n s of fa c t which i t
i s sp e c ially an d o ffi c ial ly th e po wer an d duty o f the E x e c u tive
o ffi ce to investigate an d mak e C o n g re ss m ay abide b y his
j u d g ment o r no t in re g ard t o the am o unt o f mili tary forces an d
may su p ply th e mean s o f safety or n o t a t its p l eas u re ; th o u g h
this only sayin g that they m ay b e un true to their trust at plea
s u re Th ese are thei r p owers under th e C o nstitution an d they
have m a n y o thers B u t it i s im po ssi bl e fair l y to de n y that t he
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
46
department which holds and directs the E xecutive power of the
Government— which i s ch arged with the executio n o f the laws
and with the command and disposition o f the military force
with the whole E xecutive power o f the nati o n subj ec t to the
exc eptions and qualifications which are expressed in the Consti
t u ti o n of which there are none that touch this question — is
trusted by that instrument with the s uper vrs mn o f the Union
with the power to estimate what is its danger and what is r e
quired b y the public safet y in time o f reb ellion and of deciding
and ex ecuting his decision to the extent of all the mean s at h i s
lawful command
These remark s meet the obj ection if i t shall b e raised that
an y of the conditions under which the susp ension o f the privilege
of the Writ o r the denial o f that privilege for a season i s a u
th o r i z ed b y the Constitution require l egislation or the exercise
of the power o f the Legislature except as to the means The y
Both the fact of rebellion
do n o t require it as to the subj ect
and what the public safet y requires t o the defeat or suppression
o f rebellion are o f E xecutive cognizance and decision and of
execution also to the whole extent o f the lawful mean s o f that
department It is a breach of the President s dut y not to de
clare the fact when the laws are O pposed and the execution o f
the laws is ob structed b y combinati o ns to o powerful to be sup
pressed by the usual course of j udicial proceedings and the
Marshal s posse It is his special function and obligation under
the C o nstitution to decide it and t o the extent of hi s means to
pr o vide for the safet y of the public which he cannot do with o ut
say ing what it requires
From this plain an d natural view o f the E xecutive depart
m ent there is a most obvious and just deduction in regard to his
power to sus p end or den y for a season the privilege of the Writ
The course of j ustice is
o f H abeas Corpus in time o f rebellion
at such a time ob stru c ted Courts o f j ustice execute their o ffi ce
imperfectl y In some instances the y are closed and their o fficers
are put to flight In some their j udges and o fficers are parties
to the rebellion and tak e arms against their government In
other instances the people the j urors the o ffi cers of courts are
divided in their opini o ns attachments families a ffinities Calm
n ess impartiality and composure o f mind as well as unit y of
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
47
p u r po se h ave de p arted It i s not a seaso n for th e j udicial tria l
o f al l p ers on s who are im p licated i n the re b e l li o n It cannot b e
whil e the r eb ell ion l asts T o arrest an d tr y ev en th o se wh o are
o p enly g u i l ty a n d are taken w ith the red b an d wo uld i n many
p l aces b e fruit l ess and o nly a gg ravate th e evil T he m etho ds
an d device s o f re b elli o n are i n finite
They are op e n o r co vert
a c cordin g to n ecessityo r advanta g e I n arm s or as S pies emis
s ar i es c orrespondents co mmissarie s
p r o vedit o rs o f secret su p
p lies and aids their name is s o metimes legi on all treaso n a bl e
an d man y of them disg u ised o r l yin g hid
A p art o f thi s dis
g uise m ay sometim es b e detected and n o t o fte n the who l e A n
inter c epted l etter an overheard c o n versati o n a kn own p ro cl ivity ,
an unu sua l a c tivity in unusu a l t ran sactions in muniti o ns
or
,
p r o visi o ns o r c l o thin g — a sus p i c i o us fra g ment an d n o m o re
without the p resen t clue to dete c tion m ay appear— n o t en o u gh
fo r the s c ales o f j usti c e b ut a b undantly su fficient for the pr ecau
t i o n s o f the g uardia n u p o n his wat c h
S u ch are the universa l
a cc omp animents of rebellion an d con stit u te a dan g er freque n t l y
w o rse tha n O pen arms T o con fr o nt i t at o n c e i n th e o rdinary
co urse o f j ustic e i s to i n sure its es c ap e an d to add to the
danger " et the traitor i n dis g uise m ay a c hieve his w o rk of
treaso n if he is p erm itted to g o on ; an d i f h e is j us t passing fr o m
treaso n i n pur p ose to treaso n i n ac t his arrest and impri sonm en t
fo r a seaso n may save b o th him an d the c o untry
T he ob vious and j ust dedu c tions fr o m these ob servation s i s that
the p ower o f suspe n din g o r denyin g fo r a seas o n th e p rivile g e o f
the Writ of Habeas Corpus i n time o f re b e l lion is a m o st rea
s o nabl e attrib u ti o n t o the E x e c utive p ower s u ch as the C o nsti
tu ti o n o f the United S tates has made it ; a n d s o indisp ensa bl e t o
that b ra n c h o f the G o vernm ent that with o ut i t the very arm s
en emies
o f the G o ver n ment mi g ht b e b afll ed an d its w o rst
esc ape
Th e Le g is l a t ure c ann o t exe c u t e the po wer itsel f
If the
p o wer i s l imited t o them they must del egate i t t o som eb o dy
A ll that is cl aimed for C o n g ress t o d o i s u po n som e j udgme n t
o f the fa c ts which c onstit u te th e dan g er to the pub l i c to c o mmi t
th e discretio n t o the E x ec utive B ut why form a j ud g men t
an d then leave the who l e j u d g m e n t to t he E x ecutive as they
mu st " W hy cl aim fo r Co n g ress th e p o wer to s u s p end whe n
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
48
the actual and efli ci en t power as an E xecutive act must b e with
the President " It i s claiming a p ower for Congress i n vi di os e
which the Constitution did not feel o r it woul d have spoken
The Parliament of England delegates i t to the Crown b ecause
Parliament alone can surmount the Constitution or restrict the
operation o f the H abeas Corpus A c t or declare an excep tion t o
it Parliament must act ; wh y must Co n gress act " But con
the
exception
inseparabl
y
with
rebelli
o
n
as
the
Consti
n ec ti n
g
t u ti o n o f the United States does and leaving the exercise o f the
power t o that bod y which can best exec u te it and is the para
mount director o f the public force i n time of reb ellion it is a
reasonable conclusion from the whole that the E xecuti ve de
ar tmen t is the b od y to which the C onstitution leaves it and
p
not the Legislature The power to au thor i z e suspension is l e
If
Congress
has
the
p
ower
to
authori
ze
it
they
ma
y
i
s l a ti ve
g
possibl y authoriz e the President to execute their law The y may
authori z e him per haps if the Constitution does not authoriz e
him And if Congress shall a uthori z e the President to execute
their law b y his warrant a gainst the persons h e shall think
within its purview then b e i t rem arked Congress b y thei r
law will leave to the President t h e ver y power of deciding
whether the pu bli c s af ety requires that the privilege of those
p ersons shall b e suspended Congress cannot do otherwi se if
the y pursue the course o f Parliament o r the only example i n
their o wn bod y o f a bill to suspend the privilege N o Act of
Parliament has ever passed to deprive arrested persons o f bail
o r trial which did not leave t o the " ing the power b y his Privy
Council o r Secretar y of State to decide whether the public
safet y required the arrest to b e made Unless Congress shall
b y the ac t itself designate b y name the persons to b e arrested
A
C D E F an d make that bod y itself the executive
o fli c er the question o f what the public safet y requires in regard
to the suspension of this personal privilege must b e decided b y
the President and can b e decided b y no other person
P er haps if Congress has the exclusive power to a u thor i z e the
suspension it ma y a s sign this dut y t o the President ; but this
er ha s if we ma y advert to an obj ec tion which we find in the
p
p
F eder a li s t is constitutionall y the subj ect of as much questi o n as
an y thing i n the c ase
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
50
the or i g i nal form of the proposition which included the L egis la
tu r e onl y should b e preserved if the power was intended finall y
for Congress and not for the E xecutive department
In opposition to an intention to leave the power to Congress
observe the striking departure from parallel of the s econ d clause
o f section n ine article one from the fir s t clause o f the same
section
First clause
T he migration or importation of such persons
& c shall not b e prohibit ed b y C on gr ess before the y ear 1 808
”
but a tax o r dut y "expressly within the power of C ongr ess , se c
”
“
tion 8 ) may b e imposed o n such importation
“
Second clause : The privil ege of the Writ & c shall n o t
b e suspended unless when
the public safety may req u i re
”
it
The word L egi s la tu r e in Mr P i n ck n ey s proposition aban
do n ed in the second c lause after the express insertion o f C on
in
the
first
r
e
ss
g
If there is anything in pr es en t position , this change of lan
guage is more tha n a counterpoise
T he Constitution has fo r obvious reason s en u mer ated a n d spe
If Congress was to have the
c ified the powers of Congress
power of sus p ending the W rit why n o t specify it with the other
powers in the eighth section "
If it is asked wh y not h ave done the same if it was intended
for the P r es i den t the answer i s this : The Executive power i s
vested in the President b y gen er a l terms b y one concise and
comprehensive sentence ; th o se powers of the o fli ce are alo n e
sp ecified o r e n umerated which th e President ex ercises in connec
tion with the exercise of powers by other departments and o th
c ers or in control of them a s i n the case of making treaties
commanding the army nav y and militia appointing to o ffic e
req uiring written O pinions from his secretaries granting reprieves
and pardons adj ourni n g Congress in case of disagreement and
the like
Th e question comes back — Does su spen ded in the H abeas Cor
pus clause mean suspended b y la w or simpl y suspended den i ed
def er r ed delayed hu ng up fo r a season " Is it to be carried
into eflect by a law of Congress o r by an act o f another de
ar tmen t to which as an executive authori ty it appertains "
p
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
-1
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
’
,
,
,
,
,
51
T he p o siti o n taken s o m etime s i n re g ard t o o ther p r o visi o n s o f
the C o n stituti o n that what a C o nstitution o f go vernment o rdai n s
g enera l ly it m ean s t o b e c arrie d i n to e ff e c t by l aw fails in a
g reat variety o f c ases
It fail s of co u rse whe n what the C o n sti t ution o rdain s o n a
s u bj ect is all the l aw it r equires ; as where a power to p er for m
a n exe c utive act is g iven an d t he Consti t u t i o n by its o wn term s
dec l ares the e ff ect of th e a c t ; whi c h i s the case wi t h susp ensi o n
T he word
o f the privile g e of th e W rit of Habeas C o r p us
”
“
susp ended gives e ffe c t t o the a c t whe n it i s e x e c uted u nder
the auth o rity of the C o n s t it u ti o n a n d b y the c o m p e te n t au th o
rity under it I t is the o n ly word that co u l d b e u sed t o give
c haracter to a n Ac t o f C o n g ress t o this e ffe c t
It is an illo g ica l p ro po siti o n to asser t that whatever a Consti
S uch a p r o
tu tio n o rdains is to b e c arried int o e ff e c t b y a l aw
p o sition i s founded ou an abs u rd po st u l ate , n am ely that e very
thing o rdained by a Constituti o n c an b e c arried into e ffe c t o n ly
b y a law
I t must b e untrue t o a c o n siderab l e e xtent o f
e very writte n C o nstituti o n There are n u m ero us p r o vision s i n
the C o nstituti o n o f the United S tate s which ex e c ute them selve s
o r are t o b e e x e c uted by a c ts i n
a i s witho ut the aid o f a l a w
p
o f C o n g ress —the choi c e o f se n a to rs an d representatives— th e
c h o i c e o f o ffi c ers o f ea c h house—the tria l o f impeachm e n t by
the Senate — the a p p o i n tm ent of o ffi cers b y t h e Presiden t with
c o nsen t of the Se n ate—the mode o f p assin g bil l s to b ecom e l aws
—e x tr aditi o n betwe n the S tate s and th e l ike I n the ele c tion
of a P resident the course is str iki n g the C o n stituti o n o rdains
m o st o f th e ceremony itse lf an d i t o rdains e xpress l y what Con
g ress m ay d o and what the S tates sh all do
T here i s n o su c h p rin ciple ; an d the l ast clause o f the ei g hth
se c tion o f the fi rst arti c le is a p roof of i t C o n g ress c an p ass
o nly s u c h laws as are n ecess a ry a n d pr oper t o e x e c ute th e powers
g iven t o themse l ves o r such other po wers as are veste d b y the
C o nstituti o n i n the g o ver n men t o r i n som e departm e n t o r o ffi c er
The l aw m u st b e ne c ess ary as we l l as p r o p er ; an d it is neither
when the C o n stitution is the l aw
I n this matter o f sus p e n si o n o f th e p rivil e g e o f the Writ of
Hab eas C o r p u s the Co n stituti on o f the Uni te d States sta n ds i n
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
-
.
-
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
52
the place of the English A ct of Parliament It ordains the sus
n s i o n i n the conditioned cases b y the a c t o f the competent depart
e
p
me n t— as Parliament does from time to time N either is manda
tor y in suspending but onl y authoritative Each leaves discretion
to the executive power The di fference i s that Parliament limits
a time and provides for the e ffect by technical terms The Con
s ti tu ti o n connects the suspension with the time of reb ellion and
prov ides for the e ff ect as it did fo r the privilege b y words that
comprehend the right and den y for a season the enj o y ment
of i t
It is further obj ected that this is a most dangerous power
It is fortunately confined to most dangerous tim es In such
times the p eople generally are willing and ar e often co mpel led E
to give up fo r a seaso n a portion o f their freedom t o preserve the
rest ; and fortunatel y again i t is th at portion o f the p eopl e fo r
the most part wh o like to live on the margin of disob edi ence to
the laws whose freedom is i n most danger The rest ar e rarel y
i n want o f a H abeas Corpus
But be the danger what i t ma y the safety with which such a
power i s plac ed with the President to be ex ercised upon his own
resp o nsibilit y is greater than if it were lodged with Congress
and greater than if it were devolved b y Congress up on the Pre
s i den t
Congress are irresponsible Congress in sy mpath y
with the President b y the grant lessen th e Presiden t s responsi
b i l i ty
The President directl y and personally responsible for
his o wn j udgment and acts makes the guarantee more complete
than an y other provision The Executive i s confessedl y the
weak est dep artment in the government weaker than is known
in an y other national government R eceiving from Congress
all the dangerous strength the President can have the public
apprehension should look to what he thus receives and n o t to
what he derives dire c tl y fro m the Constitution F or the use of
powers whi c h Congress ma y give him to be ex ercised according
t o his own j udgm ent it i s onl y in flagi ti ou s cases of wanton o p
pression that we can expect Congress to be hi s accuser o r the
Senate his j udges W hen his o wn j udgment brings the power
i nto exercise and his o wn application o f it work s a wrong in an y
degree h e has nothing t o fall back upon but his patriotic i n ten
tions A s a theorem O f republican polity a m o st danger o us
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
’
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
53
p o wer i f this b e most dan g erous sh o uld be l odg ed i n the feeblest
hands I n suspending th e privilege o f th e W rit o f Habeas Cor
pus upon his own j ud g ment th e Presiden t c an have n o support
but fr o m his inte g rity and his patrio tism ; and he sta n d s directly
be fo re accusers and j udges wh o have h ad n o part in his acts
W e have a striking page o f history in ou r anna l s t o remind u s
o f this distinc tion I n th e wi nter o f 1 8 07 wh e n there was
n either invasi o n of our c o untry n or i nsurre c tion in its lowest
st age mu c h l ess re b el li o n no t an arm ed forc e b ein g p roved b y
co m p etent testim o ny t o ex ist i n any p art of th e country to m ak e
A aron Burr s few followers tak e the l e a st c omplex ion o f treas o n
from their m o vem ents Mr Jefler s o n favorin g th e theory that
Co n g ress al on e had th e p ower o f susp e n ding the privile g e o f th e
W rit o f Habeas Corpus and th at h e mi g ht s a fely ex er c is e i t u n
der their wing sent a m essage to C o n gress representin g that an
em issary of B urr whom G en eral W ilkinso n had arrested an d
imprisoned had b een dis c h arge d up o n a Writ o f H ab eas Corpus ;
and the n fo llo wed th e phe n ome n o n — we migh t say the p o rtent
a S en ate r e p resenting free S tates un der th e C o nstitution p assed
within close d do o rs a bi l l suspendin g the p rivilege o f the Writ
for thre e m o nth s as to any an d al l p erson s c harged o n oath with
treaso n o r other high misdem eanor e n dangerin g th e p ea c e sa fe
ty or n e u trali ty o f th e Unite d S tates a n d arrested b y th e war
rant of the President o f the United S t ates o r by any one a c tin g
u nder his direc ti o n o r authorit y
There w as not on e word in
the bill lik e rebel l ion o r i n v a sion th e terms i n the C o nstitution
n o r any words that adumbrate d either T here was n o thin g l ik e
either in the land Ha pp i l y there was virtue enou g h in the
H ouse o f R epresentatives or en o ugh o f ali e n ati o n fr o m Mr J ef
fer s o n to mak e the H o u se rej ec t the b i ll by an immense m aj ority
an d to o pen their d oo rs B ut w e m ay ask with al l con fiden c e
whether Mr Jefler s o n eve n with a c onsc i o u sness o f his o wn
p o wer u n der the Constitution t o suspe n d th e privile g e w o uld
have ex ecuted such a p u r p o se at s u c h a time up on his own re
sponsibilit y " We may c on fi dent ly sa y n o B u t i f a m aj orit y
o f th e H o use had a c quies c ed and ther e were nineteen who voted
for it we m ay recol l ec t whose sentim ent i t was u p o n being tol d
that hi s frie n ds were wi ll in g t o i g n o re a breach o f the C o ns ti tu
hi s
ti o n whi c h he h ad expressly a c k n ow l ed g ed rep l i ed that
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
54
f r i en ds wer e
d, he wo u ld
wi th
”
f
fi
q
This getting power from friends in Congress who a r e s a ti sfied
i s a prodigious corroborative in the exercise o f it whether it b e
Constitutional o r n ot All experience teaches us that the onl y
safe depositar y of the power of suspending the privilege of the
Writ o f H abeas Corpus in time o f rebellion is that feebl e E xe
cu ti ve which the Constitution has made for us standing u pon
the onl y basis of the Constitutio n with no other support than
the integrit y and patriotism o f the man who has been elected to
it b y the people
It i s also obj ected that if the President holds the power under
the Constitution the ex ercise o f it has no li mi tati on of ti me
H ere again the English analog y breaks in W liat the o bjec
tion requires is an Act suspending the privilege from session to
session renewabl e as C ongress shall see fit
T he l imitation in England i s practicall y worth nothing It i s
either a show of supervision without the reality to pleas e the
discontented and to disarm party opposition ; or it is a m anifesta
tion o f the superiority o f Parliament t o the Crown ; or it is the
ca n ti len a of Parliamen tar y j ealous y o f the Crown
The minis
ters who pass it can always renew it if they are in power ; and
if the y ar e not a perpetual A c t would b e repealed upon their
downfall There was n o t i t is believed a single suspensio n
A ct in England in the time of an y o f their reb ellions that was
no t renewed from session to session until the rebellions were
suppressed
It would be even more a form and an unnecessar y form here
The power car r i es a li mi ta ti on of time wi th i t It depends for
its ex istence upon the existence o f rebellion The instant the
rebellion is suppressed the power is extinguished W hile r e
bellion lasts and the public safet y is in danger the power i s
indispensable ; and the Constitution supplies it for the whole of
that o cc asion
There is moreover the ever present liability t o impeachment
t o arrest it at the firs t occasion that it is used corruptl y or ty
for
the
purposes
ambition
The
o fli ce itself is a
r an n i eal l
f
o
y
short taper which shines n o t very brightl y for a brief term and
then goes out o f itself The exercise of the power would prob a
bl y b e contin ue d lon g er b y renewable terms from Congress to
s a ti s
e
a c u i es ce
s a tis a c ti o n
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
55
the P reside n t than th e Pre side n t o f h i s o wn j udgm e n t w o ul d
ex ercise it under th e Constitution
A te c h n ica l obj e c ti o n t o the e xercis e o f the p ower b y the
Preside n t is that it wil l stay the issuin g o f the W rit of Hab e as
C or p us b y the Federal C o ur ts and Judges o r arrest pr o ceedin g s
un der a writ ex p ressly autho ri z ed by A c t o f Congress which
c an on l y h e stayed o r arreste d b y a subseque n t A ct
T his is E n glish anal og y a g ain
I f the p ower of th e Preside n t
i s derived fr o m the C o n stituti o n i t is a bo ve t h e a u thority o f an
A c t o f C o n g ress I t is the p o wer of the C o ns titution t ogether
with the auth o r i z ed ac t of denial that arr ests the pro c eedin g s
o r stays the Writ for a seaso n Bu t i t is quite u nnecessary that
it sh o u ld prohibit the i ssui n g of the W rit T he W rit m ay i ss u e
t o a s c ert ain the c ause of th e c omm itme n t
T he return o f th e
co mmitme n t by the P resident i f h e p o ssesses th e p ower wil l
stay fu rther p r oc eedi n g s as i t n ow d o es i n o ur Federal C ourts
when the commitme n t i s by the a u thority of a S tate
I t i s a l s o said that th e ex ercise o f the po wer by the Preside n t
with o ut o ath o r des c riptive warran t vi o lates on e of the amend
me n ts t o the C o n stituti o n
I t w o ul d b e the s ame i f the p ower were ex er c is ed b y C on g ress
N on con s ta t, that the P resident w ill n o t req u ire an o ath
warra n t th ere a l ways i s T h e P residen t may p rovide fo r the
o a t h as well a s C o n g ress I f th e ame n dm e n t a p plie s he m ust
d o i t o r the co mmitment w ill b e i rre g u l ar B ut d o es the
am endment app l y t o this k i n d of arr es t i n a tim e o f reb el l i o n
and inter n a l war " I n I m ther v B or den th e S up reme Court
Chi e f J usti c e T a n ey del iverin g the O pinion he l d that it did n o t
a pp ly t o a sei z ure by military a u thority u nder a S ta te law whi c h
de cl are d martia l l aw I f it did n o t d o that i t does not apply to
a po wer o f arrest given b y th e Co n stit u ti o n to b e ex er c ised i n
t he time o f re b e ll ion an d i n terna l war an d i nte n ded to aid in its
su p pre ss i o n
E ither the l an gu a g e o f the ame n dmen t th o ug h g eneral , sp eak s
i n re ferenc e to the n o rm a l conditio n o f th e c o u n try only whe n
there is n o rebelli o n o r i n vasio n an d conseq u en t war forei g n o r
c ivi l ; o r un der s u c h c ir c u m stances re be ll i o n o r i n vasion super
sedes the ame n dm e n t for th e tim e T he former seems t o b e the
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
°
56
The democratic tendency o f the Constitution has so com
t
l
don
e
its
work
in
enfeebling
the
Exec
u tive o fli ce that
el
e
p
y
very able men appear t o think that to attribute to the Presi
dent the power o f suspending th e privilege is to deprive the
L egislature o f a power which naturally belongs to that body
That bod y has in n o respect a natural title to it S trictly
speaking it belongs naturall y to no department of the Govern
ment Discretionar y imprisonment however n ecessar y i n times
of extraordinar y danger and internal disorder is an arbitrar y
ou s ter fro m all the benefits o f Government ; benefits which belong
t o ever y citiz en until he is accused and convicted o f crime
If
th e Constitution had not ordained the exception no department
of the Government could have enforced it without violating th e
fundamental principl e of ever y free Government ; and it can
onl y be enforced now b y that department o f Government which
can alone ex e c ute the ordinances of the Constitution that are
executive in their character unless some other department b e
expressl y named
" et this seems to man y the most i rregular exercise o f power
that can b e conceived The obj ection i tself is one of those evils
which the E x ecutive department is exposed to from the pr edo mi
nance of the legislative power under ever y Democratic Consti
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
t u ti o n
“
.
Ma i tr ess es
de
,
’
en l even t
vou lu
f air e
les loi s ,
doi t
on
c r a i n d re
eu la
d
o r ti o n d e
ou vo i r
u e la
p
p
p
p
q
”
lu i con server
De Toc queville , I , 2 04
eu
.
’
u elles n e
q
i tu ti on
c ons t
lu i
a va
it
.
C ette dépen dan ce da pou voi r exécu tif, es t u n des vi ces i n her en s
’
a u x c on s ti tu ti on s r é u bli c a i n es
L es A mer i ca i n e n ou t pu dé
p
.
tr a i r e la
en te
p
ui
q
en tr a i n e
l es
du g ou ver n men t, ma i s i ls
”
Ibid
si s tible
o n t r en du
r er
.
mblé es légi s la ti ves d
a ss e
c ette
p
en te
’
mpa
s e
mo i n s i rr e
.
D a ns to u t
cc
u
q
’
il
fa i t d
’
ess en tiel, o n
le
s ou
met di r ectemen t
i n di r ectemen t "i l a leg i s la tu r e
022 i l es t en ti ér emen t i n de
’
”
en da n t d elle, i l n e
en
I
2
1
5
eu
t
re
u
e
r
i
s
,
p
p
p
q
ou
.
.
.
The most intelligen t men in our countr y have come at length
to b e apprehensive of the attribution of power to the E xecutive
and have n o apprehension whatever o f seeing i t cl a imed fo r that
branch whos e greatl y preponderant strength according to the
O pinion of eminen t men and lovers o f freedom is the vic e of the
Constitution
,
,
,
,
,
.
58
The conclusion o f the whole m atter is this : that the Con
s ti t u ti on itself is the law o f the privilege and of the ex ception
t o it ; that the ex ception is expressed in the Constitution and
that the Constitution gives efl ect to the act of suspensio n when
the conditions occur ; thgt the conditions consist o f two m atters
of fact o n e a naked matter o f fact and the other a matter o f fact
conclusion from fa c ts that is to sa y reb ellion and the public
danger or the requirement o f public safety Which ever power
o f the constituted g overnment can most properly decide these
facts i s master of the ex ception and comp etent to appl y it
Whether it b e Congress o r the President the p o wer can onl y b e
derived by implication as there is no express del egation o f
the power in the Constit u tion ; and it must be derived to that
department whose functions are the m ost appropriate to it Con
gress cannot execu ti vely suspend All that a Legislative bod y
can do is to authoriz e suspensi o n b y giving that e ff ect t o an E x
ec u ti ve act ; and the Constitution having authori z ed tha t
there
is no room for the exercise o f Legislative power The C on s ti tu
tion intended that for the defence o f the nation against rebellion
and invasion the power should alway s be kept open in eith er of
these events to be u sed b y that department which is the most
competent in the same even ts to say what the public safety r e
quires in thi s behalf The President being the properest and th e
safest depositar y o f the power and being the onl y power which
can ex ercise it under real and effective res po nsibilities to th e
people i t i s b oth constitutional an d safe to argue that the Con
s ti tu ti o n has pl aced i t with him
,
,
-
,
-
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.