Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: GOPcapitalist
"NC is correct. Congress killed Lincoln's attempts for a habeas corpus law for two whole years."

As I stated earlier, Congress took its time - that's called "deliberative democracy." The proposed joint resolution, SR-1, became the basis for discussion, debate, and further legislation.

The fact of the matter is that it did not matter how long Congress took, as long as it acted. Had Congress not acted, then the discussion would be based on entirely different principles. As it was, Congress and the President agreed on the course the nation should take in subduing the insurrection, and those who would support that insurrection.

187 posted on 08/26/2004 11:00:08 PM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]


To: capitan_refugio; GOPcapitalist
[cr] As I stated earlier, Congress took its time - that's called "deliberative democracy." The proposed joint resolution, SR-1, became the basis for discussion, debate, and further legislation.

The Indemnity Bill of March 3, 1863 provided in relevant part:

That, during the present rebellion, the President of the United States, whenever, in his judgment, the public safety may require it, is authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in any case throughout the United States, or any part thereof.

Even had this bill been passed in March 1861, the actions of the Lincoln administration during April 1861 and the rest of 1861 would have been unlawful. Similarly, the nationwide suspension of the privilege of the writ by Stanton.

On August 8, 1862, Stanton proclaimed: "That all U. S. marshals and superintendents or chiefs of police of any town, city, or district be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to arrest and imprison any person or persons who may be engaged, by act, speech, or writing, in discouraging volunteer enlistments, or in any way giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or in any other disloyal practice against the United States."

In addition, Stanton proclaimed, "The writ of habeas corpus is hereby suspended in respect to all persons so arrested and detained and in respect to all persons arrested for disloyal practices."

Under the 1863 Indemnity Act, Congress authorized only the President, when in the judgment of the President, the public safety required it, to suspend the privilege of the writ.

It would have still been unlawful for a military officer to suspend the privilege of the writ when in his judgment it was required. It would have still been unlawful for Stanton to suspend the privilege of the writ nation-wide.

Additionally, specific requirements were imposed upon the administration should it arrest anyone where the courts were open.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted,

That the Secretary of State and the Secretary of War be, and they are hereby, directed, as soon as may be practicable, to furnish to the judges of the circuit and district courts of the United States and of the District of Columbia, a list of the names of all persons, citizens of States in which the administration of the laws has continued unimpaired in the said federal courts, who are now, or may hereafter be, held as prisoners of the United States, by order or authority of the President of the United States or either of said Secretaries, in any fort, arsenal, or other place, as state or political prisoners, or otherwise than as prisoners of war; the said list to contain the names of all those who reside in the respective jurisdictions of said judges, or who may be deemed by the said Secretaries, or either of them, to have violated any law of the United States in any of said jurisdictions, and also the date of each arrest

--the Secretary of State to furnish a list of such persons as are imprisoned by the order or authority of the President, acting through the State Department,

and the Secretary of War a list of such as are imprisoned by the order or authority of the President, acting through the Department of War.

And in all cases where a grand jury, having attended any of said courts having jurisdiction in the premises, after the passage of this act, and after the furnishing of said list, as aforesaid, has terminated its session without finding an indictment, or presentment, or other proceeding against any such person, it shall be the duty of the judge of said court forthwith to make an order that any such prisoner desiring a discharge from said imprisonment be brought before him to be discharged; and every officer of the United States having custody of such prisoner is hereby directed immediately to obey and execute said judge's order; and in case he shall delay, or refuse so to do, he shall be subject to indictment for a misdemeanor, and be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars and imprisonment in the common jail for a period not less than six months, in the discretion of the court:

Provided, however, That no person shall be discharged by virtue of the provisions of this act until after he or she shall have taken an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States, and to support the Constitution thereof; and that he or she will not hereafter, in any way, encourage or give aid and comfort to the present rebellion, or the supporters thereof:

And provided, also, That the judge or court before whom such person may be brought, before discharging him or her from imprisonment, shall have power, on examination of the case, and, if the public safety shall require it, shall be required to cause him or her to enter into recognizance, with or without surety, in a sum to be fixed by said judge or court, to keep the peace and be of good behavior towards the United States and its citizens, and from time to time, and at such times as such judge or court may direct, appear before said judge or court to be further dealt with, according to law, as the circumstances may require. And it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States to attend such examination before the judge.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That in case any of such prisoners shall be under indictment or presentment for any offence against the laws of the United States, and by existing laws bail or a recognizance may be taken for the appearance for trial of such person, it shall be the duty of said judge at once to discharge such person upon bail or recognizance for trial as aforesaid. And in case the said Secretaries of State and War shall for any reason refuse or omit to furnish the said list of persons held as prisoners as aforesaid at the time of the passage of this act within twenty days thereafter, and of such persons as hereafter may be arrested within twenty days from the time of the arrest, any citizen may, after a grand jury shall have terminated its session without finding an indictment or presentment, as provided in the second section of this act, by a petition alleging the facts aforesaid touching any of the persons so as aforesaid imprisoned, supported by the oath of such petitioner or any other credible person, obtain and be entitled to have the said judge's order to discharge such prisoner on the same terms and conditions prescribed in the second section of this act: Provided, however, That the said judge shall be satisfied such allegations are true.


197 posted on 08/27/2004 4:26:51 AM PDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]

To: capitan_refugio
As I stated earlier, Congress took its time - that's called "deliberative democracy."

No. It's called you're desparately spinning an unfortunate and undesired fact. The bill DIED at the end of the summer session in 1861. They were not simply moving slowly. They were not "deliberating" over it while on break. They let it die. Hell, it wasn't even the same session of Congress!

The fact of the matter is that it did not matter how long Congress took, as long as it acted.

Two years of continuous federal court rulings against the Lincoln arrest machine say otherwise. You are obfuscating.

233 posted on 08/28/2004 10:57:36 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist ("Can Lincoln expect to subjugate a people thus resolved? No!" - Sam Houston, 3/1863)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson