Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

the same time by both Congress and the states would be inconsistent, then the legislation of Congress, in pursuance of that power, absolutely suspends the legislative power of the states over the same subject. Thus, Congress are authorized to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy, but the states may pass bankrupt laws, provided there be no act of Congress in force establishing a uniform law on that subject. In this instance, it is not the mere existence of the power, but its exercise, which is incompatible with the exercise of the same power by the states. When Congress passes a uniform law, the partial laws of the states must yield to it.

I

POWERS DENIED TO CONGRESS.

200. We have seen in the preceding pages what Congress may do. The next step leads us to consider what they may not do.

The Slave Trade.

201. In the first place, the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states existing at the time of the adoption of the Constitution should think proper to admit, were not to be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty might be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

202. The object of this clause was to prevent Congress from interdicting the slave trade prior to the year 1808. At the time the Constitution was framed, there was a strong feeling in several of the states in favor of that trade, and in deference to that feeling Congress were inhibited to abolish it prior to the year above named. above named. Congress, however, at an early day prohibited American citizens from carrying on the traffic between foreign countries; and they

passed a prospective Act in 1807, prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United States after January 1, 1808. As the penalties of this Act were not sufficient to put an end to the traffic, another Act was passed in 1820, declaring the slave trade piracy, and punishing those engaged in it with death.

Habeas Corpus.

203. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

204. The words habeas corpus mean "that you have the body," and the writ, so called, is directed to the person charged with illegally detaining another in custody, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner, and make known the cause of his detention. If no sufficient ground of detention appears the party is entitled to an immediate discharge. The courts of the United States issue the writ of habeas corpus in cases falling within their jurisdiction, and the state courts possess a like authority in cases falling within theirs; so that a prompt and efficacious remedy and a convenient tribunal are provided for every case of illegal restraint of a man's liberty.

204. Under the judiciary act of 1789, the justices of the Supreme Court, as well as the district judges, have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the

purpose of inquiry into the cause of commitment; provided, however, that such writs shall not extend to prisoners in jail, unless they are in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States, or are committed to trial before some court of the same, or unless it is necessary to bring them into court to testify. It will be observed, therefore, that by the terms of this act, no judge of a United States court can issue a habeas corpus to extend to a prisoner in cus tody under sentence or execution of a state court, no matter whether the imprisonment is under civil or criminal process, except for the single purpose of using such prisoner as a witness. By subsequent acts, however, the power of the justices of the supreme and district courts was extended to cases of a prisoner or prisoners in jail or confinement, committed or confined by any authority, for any act done or omitted to be done, in pursuance of a law of the United States, or any order, process, or decree of any judge or court thereof; and to cases where subjects or citizens of a foreign state, and domiciled therein, are committed, or confined, or are in custody, under or by any authority, or law, or process founded therein, of the United States, or of any one of them, for or on account of any act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption, set up or claimed under the commission, or order, or sanction of any foreign state or sovereignty, the validity or effect whereof depends upon the law of

nations, or under color thereof; and, lastly, to cases where any person is restrained of liberty in violation of the Constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States.

204. It is only in the foregoing cases that the Federal judiciary has jurisdiction of this writ; in all other cases arising under the specific laws of the several states or under the common law, the party aggrieved must seek his remedy in the appropriate state court. But the state tribunals have no right, through the writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the lawfulness of restraint under the authority of the United States; they may indeed issue the writ when illegal restraint upon liberty is alleged, yet when it is served upon the Federal officer, having the prisoner in charge, and his return shows that he is held under Federal authority, the state court can proceed no further with the case. Such officer is not bound to obey the state process, except so far as to make known to the state tribunal the authority under which the prisoner is held.

205. In cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require that the government should have the power to imprison dangerous persons on grounds that might not be sufficient to prevent their discharge should they or others for them apply to the courts for a writ of habeas corpus. In such cases, therefore, Congress may suspend the privilege of the writ;

« AnteriorContinuar »