HABEAS CORPUS.
The PRESIDENT pro tem, announced the consideration of the special order for this hour, viz: the House amendments to the bill S. No. 196 (printed in these Reports of the 14th) concerning the writ of habeas corpus.
Mr. COBB, since the passage of this Bill by the Senate, upon mature deliberation, had come to the conclusion that the bill should fail. He knew of no State which does not give to the Supreme Judges jurisdiction in cases of this kind; we have always done it heretofore, and that duty should be still imposed upon them. He cited instances where the law as it now is was of inestimable value to citizens who have been refused the writ in their own districts; and without taking up the time of the Senate in arguing the question, declared his opposition to the measure from this time forward.
Mr. OYLER. These amendments ought to be concurred in. It is not a denial of the writ to take the Jurisdiction away from the Supreme Court, nor is it a want of confidence in that Court which induced the presentation of this bill. While the time of our Judges are taken up with trials of writs of habeas corpus, page: 117[View Page 117]they cannot decide other cases which may be awaiting their decision. The rights of a speedy and impartial, trial are amply provided lor in this bill.
Mr. CULLEN. The right to personal liberty is perhaps the dearest one a man can cherish, and while willing to lift from the Judges of the Supreme Court any burden that might rest upon them, he was unwilling to close any of the avenues to personal liberty. Every Court in the State should be open for the purposes of application for this writ by parties restrained of liberty; and there is no right or justice in the proposition to close the highest Court in the State of Indiana against her citizens in this respect. It were better that every single case on the docket of the Supreme Court should stand still than that one innocent man should be kept in jail one hour.
Mr. CORBIN. At the time this bill passed was one one of those who carelessly and inconsiderately voted for it. He should now oppose concurring in the House amendments and aid in every possible way to kill the bill, for it ought to die. This bill proposes to curtail the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, which heretofore has been regarded as one of the greatest privileges of an American citizen. That there was no abridgement of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus has been the proudest boast of an American citizen. No hand should be raised to strike it down, or to curtail any of its privileges. What is the plea of necessity urged for the curtailment of this right at the present time? Why the Supreme bench want to be relieved of a little labor. That is all. If we attempt to curtail these privileges by shutting up one of the avenues to obtain that writ, we strike a blow that will be felt in all time to come; and, it would seem that we strike a blow at the Constitution itself. But it is claimed that this bill would leave the party with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. Then that Court would not be relieved of this class of business; and the appeal would come up surrounded with many prejudices.
Mr. ALLISON envied the Senator having a higher appreciation than he of the rights and privileges of writs of habeas corpus, but thought they could be guaranteed to every citizen without the necessity of burdening the Supreme Court, encumbering its records, and preventing its attention to its proper business. The sole object of this bill is that the Supreme Judges should not be burdened by trying writs of habeas corpus. If the writ is refused by the courts below, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court, and they are compelled to take up the case immediately. But there would not be one case in fifty where the courts below would refuse to grant an application. He knew of but one case in a practice of twenty years, and then the refusal was based on the idea that the Judge did not have jurisdiction. This bill gives the Judges of both the Common Pleas and Circuit Courts jurisdiction, so that plea can not be made after its passage. He hoped the bill would pass, so that the Supreme Court may be deprived of original jurisdiction in these cases. Then applications would be made to the courts at home, and witnesses would not be compelled to come up to i,he capital at a heavy expense, for which the law provides no remuneration.
Mr. NILES remarked that he was no special advocate of the bill, but was inclined to favor it. The Supreme Court was intended solely as a court of errors, and it was an anomaly in our system to require the Judges to hear writs of habeas corpus. Their opinions constitute a part of the law of the State, and settle rules of property and all private rights. He thought it important that their whole time be given to the peculiar duties of their office. At the same time he would not, in any manner, abridge the great writ of liberty. If necessary, he would amend the habeas corpus act so that in case of one local judge being prejudiced, another could be called in to try the case; and if, as has been intimated, any judge should dare to refuse the writ, when properly applied for, he would make the penalty for such a refusal tenfold greater than at present. He suggested that the habeas corpus act could be so amended as to avoid all necessity for bringing such cases, in the first instance before the judges of the Supreme Court.
Mr. VAWTER was the only Senator who voted against this bill on its passage, and he was now but more firmly convinced that it is wrong to take from the Supreme Court its present jurisdiction in habeas corpus cases. There is not a Circuit or Common Pleas Court in his part of the State but what is overburthened with business, and he could not see the justice of still further burthening these courts and relieving the Judges of the Supreme Court, who, it is said, are about up with their business. The Judges of the Supreme Court receive a salary of $3,000, and the Circuit Judges, who do twice the business, but $2,000. For these and reasons given by the Senator from Rush [Mr. Cullen,] and others, he should vote against concurrence in the amendments.
Mr. CASON'S understanding was that this bill will enlarge the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus. It was unquestionably better to vote for this law. The arguments presented by the Senator from Laporte [Mr. Niles,] were important, and should receive the attention of Senators.
Mr. THOMPSON opposed concurrence in the amendments of the House, because he desired to see the bill fail. A man's personal liberty is above all property, and he ought to have the right to appeal to Herod or to Caesar.
Mr. BROWN, of Wells, voted for the bill when it passed the Senate, entirely through the confidence he had in the friends of the bill, and not from personal knowledge of its provisions. Under circumstances since disclosed, and upon the discussion of the merits of the bill this morning, he was now compelled to vote against concurrence.
The Senate refused to concur in the House amendments by yeas 15, nays 29, as follows:
YEAS - Allison, Beeson, Bennett, Bonham, Cason, Chapman, Culver, Dykes, Niles, Noyes, 0yler, Reagan, Perry, Van Buskirk, Ward and Wood -15.
NAYS - Barker, Bowman, Bradley, Brown of Hamilton, Brown of Wells, Cobb, Corbin, Cullen, Davis, Douglas, English, Firch, Fuller Gaff, Gifford, Hanns, Jinkins, Marshall, McClurg, Mason, Milligan, Moore, Newlin, Richmond, Staggs, Thompson, Vawter, Williams and Mr President - 29.
