CONGKESS, UNITED STATES. 



191 



ilege of the writ of habeas corpus, unless when, in cases 

 of " rebellion or invasion, the public safety may re- 

 quire it." It was, doubtless, to afford the people the 

 means of protecting and enforcing these inestimable 

 privileges that the jurisdiction which this bill pro- 

 poses to take away was conferred upon the Supreme 

 Court of the Union. The act conferring that juris- 

 diction was approved on the 5th day of February, 

 1867, with a full knowledge of the motives that 

 prompted its passage, and because it was believed to 

 be necessary and right. Nothing has since occurred 

 to disapprove the wisdom and justness of the meas- 

 ure ; and to modify it as now proposed would be to 

 lessen the protection of the citizen from the exer- 

 cise of arbitrary power and to weaken the safeguards 

 of life and liberty, which can never be made too se- 

 cure against illegal encroachments. 



The bill not only prohibits the adjudication by the 

 Supreme Court of cases in which appeals may here- 

 after be taken, but interdicts its jurisdiction on ap- 

 peals which have already been made to that high ju- 

 dicial body. If, therefore, it should become a law, it 

 will, by its retroactive operation, wrest from the cit- 

 izen a remedy he enjoyed at the time of his appeal. 

 It will thus operate most harshly upon those who be- 

 lieve that justice has been denied them in the in- 

 ferior courts. 



The legislation proposed in the second section, it 

 seems to me, is not in harmony with the spirit and 

 intention of the Constitution. It cannot fail to affect 

 most injuriously the just equipoise of our system of 

 Government ; for it establishes a precedent which, if 

 followed, may eventually sweep away every check on 

 arbitrary and unconstitutional legislation. Thus far 

 during the existence of the Government the Supreme 

 Court of the United States has been viewed by the 

 people as the true expounder of their Constitution, 

 and in the most violent party conflicts its judgments 

 and decrees have always been sought and deferred to 

 with confidence and respect. In public estimation it 

 combines judicial wisdom and impartiality in a greater 

 degree than any other authority known to the Con- 

 stitution ; and any act which may be construed into 

 or mistaken for an attempt to prevent or evade its 

 decisions, on a question which affects the liberty of 

 the citizens and agitates the country, cannot fail to be 

 attended with unpropitious consequences. It will be 

 justly held by a large portion of the people as an ad- 

 mission of the unconstitutionally of the act on which 

 its judgment may be forbidden or forestalled, and 

 may interfere with that willing acquiescence in its 

 provisions which is necessary for the harmonious and 

 efficient execution of any law. 



For these reasons, thus briefly and imperfectly 

 stated, and for others, of which want of time forbids 

 the enumeration, I deem it my duty to withhold my 

 assent from this bill, and to return it for the reconsid- 

 eration of Congress. 



ANDKEW JOHNSON. 



WASHINGTON, D. C., March 25, 1868. 



Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, said: "Mr. Pres- 

 ident, the objections made by the President 

 of the United States, in his message, to this 

 bill, are based upon the second section. That 

 section alone does not explain or enable us 

 to understand its force and meaning. It is as 

 follows : 



That so much of the act approved February 5, 1867, 

 entitled "An act to amend an act to establish the 

 judicial courts of the United States," approved Sep- 

 tember 24, 1789, as authorizes an appeal from the 

 judgment of the circuit court- to the Supreme Court 

 of the United States, or the exercise of any such 

 jurisdiction by said Supreme Court on appeals which 

 have been made or may hereafter be taken, be, and 

 the same is hereby, repealed. 



" The section of the law which is thus re- 



pealed is in part as follows. In the first place, 

 the act of February 5, 186V, provides: 



That the several courts of the United States, and 

 the several justices and judges of such courts, within 

 their respective jurisdictions, in addition to the au- 

 thority already conferred by law, shall have power 

 to grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases where any 

 person may be restrained of his or her liberty in vio- 

 lation of the Constitution, or of any treaty or law of 

 the United States. 



" Then, toward the close of the section, it 

 provides that 



From the final decision of any judge, justice, or 

 court, inferior to the circuit court, an appeal may 

 be taken to the circuit court of the United States for 

 the district in which said cause is heard, and from 

 the judgment of said circuit court to the Supreme 

 Court of the United States, on such terms and under 

 such regulations and orders, as well for the custody 

 and appearance of the person alleged to be restrained 

 of his or her liberty, as for sending up to the appel- 

 late tribunal a transcript of the petition, writ of 

 habeas corpus, return thereto, and other proceedings, 

 as may be prescribed by the Supreme Court, or, in 

 default of such, as the judge hearing said cause may 

 prescribe. 



" The effect of this legislation is to give any 

 citizen of the country the right to the writ of 

 habeas corpus to be issued by any of the courts 

 of the United States within their jurisdiction 

 or by any judge of such court in the following 

 case ; that is : 



^ "Where any person may be restrained of his or her 

 liberty in violation of the Constitution, or of any 

 treaty or law of the United States. 



"And either party interested in such a case 

 as that may have his appeal from the circuit 

 court of the United States to the Supreme 

 Court; and now the bill which the President 

 sends back with his objections repeals that 

 clause which allows a party in any case an ap- 

 peal to the Supreme Court of the United States, 

 where his liberty is withheld from him in vio- 

 lation of the Constitution or any law or treaty 

 of the United States. Without reference 

 to any particular case, without reference to 

 any purpose that is to be subserved, why 

 take away from a party an appeal to the 

 Supreme Court in a case like that? Inde- 

 pendent of all temporary considerations, inde- 

 pendent of all possible party views, indepen- 

 dent of the effect upon any pending cause, why 

 is it that a party may not have an appeal to 

 the Supreme Court from the judgment of the 

 circuit court when the question is whether he 

 be restrained of his liberty in violation of the 

 Constitution of the United States or of any law 

 or treaty of the United States ? And, sir, in 

 in the discussion of this question, I shall be 

 very happy to hear Senators upon the other 

 side give a reason why an appeal ought not m 

 such a case to be allowed to the Supreme 

 Court of the United States. In all civil suits 

 that are tried before the circuit courts of the 

 United States, where the controversy is in re- 

 gard to property of the amount of $2,000, 

 either party has his appeal to the Supreme 

 Court. The legislation of the country assumes 

 that where the matter in controversy is of less 



