north america-2-第52部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


hen　coined；　to　establish　postal　communication；　to　make　laws　for　defense　of　patents　and　copyrights；　to　constitute　national　courts　of　law　inferior　to　the　Supreme　Court；　to　punish　piracies；　to　declare　war；　to　raise；　pay　for；　and　govern　armies；　navies；　and　militia；　and　to　exercise　exclusive　legislation　in　a　certain　district　which　shall　contain　the　seat　of　government　of　the　United　States；　and　which　is　therefore　to　be　regarded　as　belonging　to　the　nation　at　large；　and　not　to　any　particular　State。　This　district　is　now　called　the　District　of　Columbia。　　It　is　situated　on　the　Potomac；　and　contains　the　City　of　Washington。　Then　the　ninth　section　of　the　same　article　declares　what　Congress　shall　not　do。　　Certain　immigration　shall　not　be　prohibited；　THE　PRIVILEGE　OF　THE　WRIT　OF　HABEAS　CORPUS　SHALL　NOT　BE　SUSPENDED；　except　under　certain　circumstances；　no　ex　post　facto　law　shall　be　passed；　no　direct　tax　shall　be　laid　unless　in　proportion　to　the　census；　no　tax　shall　be　laid　on　exports；　no　money　shall　be　drawn　from　the　treasury　but　by　legal　appropriation；　no　title　of　nobility　shall　be　granted。　The　above　are　lists　or　catalogues　of　the　powers　which　Congress　has；　and　of　the　powers　which　Congress　has　notof　what　Congress　may　do；　and　of　what　Congress　may　not　do；　and　having　given　them　thus　seriatim；　I　may　here　perhaps　be　best　enabled　to　say　a　few　words　as　to　the　suspension　of　the　privilege　of　the　writ　of　habeas　corpus　in　the　United　States。　　It　is　generally　known　that　this　privilege　has　been　suspended　during　the　existence　of　the　present　rebellion　very　many　times；　that　this　has　been　done　by　the　Executive；　and　not　by　Congress；　and　that　it　is　maintained　by　the　Executive　and　by　those　who　defend　the　conduct　of　the　now　acting　Executive　of　the　United　States　that　the　power　of　suspending　the　writ　has　been　given　by　the　Constitution　to　the　President　and　not　to　Congress。　　I　confess　that　I　cannot　understand　how　any　man　familiar　either　with　the　wording　or　with　the　spirit　of　the　Constitution　should　hold　such　an　argument。　To　me　it　appears　manifest　that　the　Executive；　in　suspending　the　privilege　of　the　writ　without　the　authority　of　Congress；　has　committed　a　breach　of　the　Constitution。　　Were　the　case　one　referring　to　our　British　Constitution；　a　plain　man；　knowing　little　of　parliamentary　usage　and　nothing　of　law　lore；　would　probably　feel　some　hesitation　in　expressing　any　decided　opinion　on　such　a　subject；　seeing　that　our　constitution　is　unwritten。　　But　the　intention　has　been　that　every　citizen　of　the　United　States　should　know　and　understand　the　rules　under　which　he　is　to　live；　and　that　he　that　runs　may　read。　As　this　matter　has　been　argued　by　Mr。　Horace　Binney；　a　lawyer　of　Philadelphiamuch　trusted；　of　very　great　and　of　deserved　eminence　throughout　the　Statesin　a　pamphlet　in　which　he　defends　the　suspension　of　the　privilege　of　the　writ　by　the　President；　I　will　take　the　position　of　the　question　as　summed　up　by　him　in　his　last　page；　and　compare　it　with　that　clause　in　the　Constitution　by　which　the　suspension　of　the　privilege　under　certain　circumstances　is　decreed；　and　to　enable　me　to　do　this　I　will；　in　the　first　place；　quote　the　words　of　the　clause　in　question：　〃The　privilege　of　the　writ　of　habeas　corpus　shall　not　be　suspended　unless　when；　in　case　of　rebellion　or　invasion；　the　public　safety　may　require　it。〃　　It　is　the　second　clause　of　that　section　which　states　what　Congress　shall　not　do。　Mr。　Binney　argues　as　follows：　〃The　conclusion　of　the　whole　matter　is　thisthat　the　Constitution　itself　is　the　law　of　the　privilege　and　of　the　exception　to　it；　that　the　exception　is　expressed　in　the　Constitution；　and　that　the　Constitution　gives　effect　to　the　act　of　suspension　when　the　conditions　occur；　that　the　conditions　consist　of　two　matters　of　factone　a　naked　matter　of　fact；　and　the　other　a　matter…of…fact　conclusion　from　facts：　that　is　to　say；　rebellion　and　the　public　danger；　or　the　requirement　of　public　safety。〃　　By　these　words　Mr。　Binney　intends　to　imply　that　the　Constitution　itself　gave　the　privilege　of　the　writ　of　habeas　corpus；　and　itself　prescribes　the　taking　away　of　that　privilege　under　certain　circumstances。　　But　this　is　not　so。　　The　Constitution　does　not　prescribe　the　suspension　of　the　privilege　of　the　writ　under　any　circumstances。　　It　says　that　it　shall　not　be　suspended　except　under　certain　circumstances。　　Mr。　Binney's　argument；　if　I　understand　it；　then　goes　on　as　follows：　As　the　Constitution　prescribes　the　circumstances　under　which　the　privilege　of　the　writ　shall　be　suspendedthe　one　circumstance　being　the　naked　matter　of　fact　rebellion；　and　the　other　circumstance　the　public　safety　supposed　to　have　been　endangered　by　such　rebellion；　which　Mr。　Binney　calls　a　matter…of…fact　conclusion　from　factsthe　Constitution　must　be　presumed　itself　to　suspend　the　privilege　of　the　writ。　　Whether　the　President　or　Congress　be　the　agent　of　the　Constitution　in　this　suspension；　is　not　matter　of　moment。　　Either　can　only　be　an　agent；　and　as　Congress　cannot　act　executively；　whereas　the　President　must　ultimately　be　charged　with　the　executive　administration　of　the　order　for　that　suspension；　which　has　in　fact　been　issued　by　the　Constitution　itself；　therefore　the　power　of　exercising　the　suspension　of　the　writ　may　properly　be　presumed　to　be　in　the　hands　of　the　President　and　not　to　be　in　the　hands　of　Congress。　If　I　follow　Mr。　Binney's　argument；　it　amounts　to　so　much。　　But　it　seems　to　me　that　Mr。　Binney　is　wrong　in　his　premises　and　wrong　in　his　conclusion。　　The　article　of　the　Constitution　in　question　does　not　define　the　conditions　under　which　the　privilege　of　the　writ　shall　be　suspended。　　It　simply　states　that　this　privilege　shall　never　be　suspended　except　under　certain　conditions。　　It　shall　not　be　suspended　unless　when　the　public　safety　may　require　such　suspension　on　account　of　rebellion　or　invasion。　　Rebellion　or　invasion　is　not　necessarily　to　produce　such　suspension。　　There　is；　indeed；　no　naked　matter　of　fact　to　guide　either　President　or　Congress　in　the　matter；　and　therefore　I　say　that　Mr。　Binney　is　wrong　in　his　premises。　Rebellion　or　invasion　might　occur　twenty　times　over；　and　might　even　endanger　the　public　safety；　without　justifying　the　suspension　of　the　privilege　of　the　writ　under　the　Constitution。　　I　say　also　that　Mr。　Binney　is　wrong　in　his　conclusion。　　The　public　safety　must　require　the　suspension　before　the　suspension　can　be　justified；　and　such　requirement　must　be　a　matter　for　judgment　and　for　the　exercise　of　discretion。　　Whether　or　no　there　shall　be　any　suspension　is　a　matter　for　deliberationnot　one　simply　for　executive　action；　as　though　it　were　already　ordered。　　There　is　no　matter…of…fact　conclusion　from　facts。　　Should　invasion　or　rebellion　occur；　and　should　the　public　safety；　in　consequence　of　such　rebellion　or　invasion；　require　the　suspension　of　the　privilege　of　the　writ；　then；　and　only　then；　may　the　privilege　be　suspended。　　But　to　whom　is　the　power；　or　rather　the　duty；　of　exercising　this　discretion　delegated？　　Mr。　Binney　says　that　〃there　is　no　express　delegation　of　the　power　in　the　Constitution？〃　I　maintain　that　Mr。　Binney　is　again　wrong；　and　that　the　Constitution　does　expressly　delegate　the　power；　not　to　the　President；　but　to　Congress。　　This　is　done　so　clearly；　to　my　mind；　that　I　cannot　understand　the　misunderstanding　which　has　existed　in　the　States　upon　the　subject。　　The　first　article　of　the　Constitution　treats　〃of　the　legislature。〃　　The　second　article　treats　〃of　the　executive？〃　　The　third　treats　〃of　the　judiciary。〃　　After　that　there　are　certain　〃miscellaneous　articles〃　so　called。　　The　eighth　section　of　the　first　article　gives；　as　I　have　said　before；　a　list　of　things　which　the　legislature　or　Congress　shall　do。　　The　ninth　section　gives　a　list　of　things　which　the　legislature　or　Congress　shall　not　do。　　The　second　item　in　this　list　is　the　prohibition　of　any　suspension　of　the　privilege　of　the　writ　of　habeas　corpus；　except　under　certain　circumstances。　　This　prohibition　is　therefore　expressly　placed　upon　Congress；　and　this　prohibition　contains　the　only　authority　under　which　the　privilege　can　be　constitutionally　suspended。　　Then　comes　the　article　on　the　executive；　which　defines　the　powers　that　the　President　shall　exercise。　　In　that　article　there　is　no　word　referring　to　the　suspension　of　the　privilege　of　the　writ。　　He　that　runs　may　read。　I　say；　therefore；　that　Mr。　Lincoln's　government　has　committed　a　breach　of　the　Constitution　in　taking　upon　itself　to　suspend　the　privilege；　a　breach　against　the　letter　of　the　Constitution。　　It　has　assumed　a　power　which　the　Constitution　has　not　given　itwhich；　indeed；　the　Constitution；　by　placing　it　in　the　hands　of　another　body；　has　manifestly　declined　to　put　into　the　hands　of　the　Executive；　and　it　has　also　committed　a　breach　against　the　spirit　of　the　Constitution。　　The　chief　purport　of　the　Constitution　is　to　guard　the　liberties　of　the　people；　and　to　confide　to　a　deliberative　body　the　consideration　of　all　circumstances　by　which　those　liberties　may　be　affected。　　The　President　shall　command　the　army；　but　Congress　shall　raise　and　support　the　army。　　Congress　shall　declare　war。　Congress　shall　coin　money。　　Congress；　by　one　of　its　bodies；　shall　sanction　treaties。　　Congress　shall　establish　such　law　courts　as　are　not　established　by　the　Constitution。　　Under　no　circumstances　is　the　President　to　decre