CH. XXXII.]
POWERS OF CONGRESS—ATTAINDERS.
209
bad times to the worst of purposes. Hitherto no suspension of the writ has ever been authorized by congress since the establishment of the constitution.[1] It would seem, as the power is given to congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, that the right to judge, whether exigency had arisen, must exclusively belong to that body.[2]
§ 1337. The next clause is, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
§ 1338. Bills of attainder, as they are technically called, are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penal-- ↑ Mr. Jefferson expressed a decided objection against the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in any case whatever, declaring himself in favour of "the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws." 2 Jefferson's Corresp. 274, 291.—"Why," said he on another occasion, "suspend the writ of habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions?"—"If the public safety requires, that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony in those, than in other emergencies, let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against the government for damages." 2 Jefferson's Corresp. 344.—Yet the only attempt ever made in congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus was during his administration on occasion of the supposed treasonable conspiracy of Col. Aaron Burr. Mr. Jefferson sent a message to congress on the subject of that conspiracy on 22d January, 1807. On the next day, Mr. Giles of the senate moved a committee to consider the expediency of suspending the writ of habeas corpus be appointed, and the motion prevailed. The committee (Mr. Giles, chairman) reported a bill for this purpose. The bill passed the senate, and was rejected in the house of representatives by a vote of 113 for the rejection, against 19 in its favour. See 3 Senate Journal, 22d January, 1807, p. 127; id. 130, 131. 5 Journ. of House of Representatives, 26th January, 1807, p. 550, 551, 552.
- ↑ Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. R. 19. See also 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 292; 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 12, (2d edit. p. 262 to 265.)
vol. iii.27
