Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume VIII.djvu/377

 HABAKKUK HABEAS CORPUS 363 Irained between 1839 and 1852, and almost whole of it was reclaimed. It forms now a commune with a population of about 10,000. (See DRAINAGE.) HABAKKIJK, one of the twelve minor proph- of whose birth or death we know with cer- dnty neither the time nor the place. His jrophecy is variously dated by different scholars from about 630 to 590 B. C. It relates chiefly the threatened invasion of Judea by the Jhaldeans. The style is highly poetical^ and ,_ie ode or prayer of the 3d chapter is proba- jly unrivalled, not only for splendor of diction n subject, but for sublimity, simplicity, and >wer. See Delitzsch, Der Prophet Habakuk, degt (Leipsic, 1843), and De Habacuci cB Vita atque JEtate (2d ed., 1844). HABEAS CORPUS, an ancient English writ, for a variety of purposes from the remo- time. It is addressed to a sheriff or other icer, and commands him to have the body the person named at a certain place and "When all writs were in Latin, the charac- jrizing words of this writ were ut habeas cor- and the name has long survived the use these words in the writ. One of the pur- ges for which it was used was to recover free- lorn which had been wrongfully taken away. Arsenal liberty was always asserted by the ion law from its earliest ages; and it ras always assailed by kings who would be tyrants, and with an earnestness proportioned their tyranny. Hence it became necessary to declare this principle in the most solemn lanner in Magna Charta. It is there said that no man shall be taken or imprisoned but by le lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land;" and this clause, more than any ler, has given to that instrument the name the palladium of English liberty, a name rhich is deserved rather by the writ of habeas >us. For, on the one hand, the great char- ter did not enact this as a new rule of law, but only declared it to be the law of the land ; and, on the other, its force and influence gradually faded, in despite of repeated formal confirma- tions ; and this law became actual and opera- tive only by means of the habeas corpus. This writ was issuable from the king's bench ; and was used to protect or restore liberty, by ringing the prisoner before the court, whose luty it was to order his immediate discharge if he were not restrained of his liberty accord- ig to law. But it was evaded by courts and leriffs, who were disposed to support royal or linisterial usurpations ; and it became so pow- erless that early in the reign of Charles I. the 3urt of king's bench formally decided that ley had no power to release any person im- prisoned without any cause assigned, if he were imprisoned by the express command of the king, or by the lords of the privy council. The petition of right, passed in 1628, asserted the illegality. of this decision, and declared that u no freeman should be imprisoned or detained without cause shown, to which he may make answer according to law." But the means of enforcing this rule were still imperfect, and personal liberty was still violated ; and by 16 Charles I., ch. 10, various provisions were enact- ed, intended to make the writ more effectual. But this was not enough. The judges still con- tinued to refuse the writ at their pleasure, or to insist that it could be issued only in term time ; and prisoners were sent to distant jails, and sheriffs and jailers refused to obey it; or if the party imprisoned were brought before an examining court, his liberty was still withheld on frivolous pretences. At length, in the 31st year of the reign of Charles II. (1679), what is now always understood by the habeas corpus act was enacted. It consisted of a variety of provisions, devised with so much skill, and so well adapted to give each other mutual support, that it may safely be asserted that personal liberty will be safe in England and the United States so long as this law remains in force. Evasion of it is almost impossible ; and it can be made ineffectual only by a positive and open violation of its essential provisions, or by a dis- tinct denial of its interposition. The English statute has been copied in the United States, without essential change ; the variations from it being only such as would, in the opinion of the various legislatures, make its provisions more stringent, and the security it gives to liberty more certain and available. The pro- visions of the statutes of habeas corpus, now in force in the different states, may be stated gen- erally thus: 1. The writ commands the sheriff, or other person to whom it is directed, to have the body of the person who is said to be re- strained of his liberty forthwith before the justice issuing it, or some other tribunal com- petent to try the questions the case may pre- sent; and to summon the person restraining the alleged prisoner to be there also, and bring with him the cause of the restraint; that all parties may then and there submit themselves to whatever may be lawfully adjudged and ordered in their behalf. The language varies in the different statutes which give the form of the writ ; but it is always substantially as above. 2. The writ must be granted, as of right, by any of the justices of the higher courts, and, in their absence or inaccessibility, by any of those of a lower court, down to justices of the quorum ; the law covering in this respect a wide range, so as to insure to every applicant some one from whom this re- dress or remedy may come. 3. It must be granted at any time when it is prayed for, whether a court be sitting or not. 4. It-must be granted either to the party himself restrain- ed of his liberty, or to any one applying for him ; and if his name be unknown, the best description which can readily be given is suf- ficient. 5. The application must be in writing, and must be verified by the oath of the appli- cant. 6. The sheriff or other officer to whom it is directed must render prompt obedience, and make immediate service, and return the