Chief "Justice Taney.
justice and liberty, lose all appreciation of the means which in the established order are in dispensable to their security. It was so in this case. The critics of the Chief Justice were now a majority of those who supported the government. His fine courage and de votion to duty were invisible to their eyes. They would recognize no motive to his con duct except an imagined hostility to the government. Vials of wrath were poured upon his dying head. Two members of the court who had aided in the reactionary decisions and in the Dred Scott case — one of them being more respon sible than he for the scope of the opinion — were citizens of seceding States and in office at the beginning of the civil war. They ad hered to the government and attempted to continue in the discharge of their duties in the circuit court, nothwithstanding the action of their State. Another, who contributed more than did the Chief Justice to the reac tion, became a prominent anti-slavery candi date for President. These were all pardoned and praised by those who had no words but of censure for Judge Taney. Perhaps no other man was ever so mis judged with so little reason. Of the eightyseven years of his life, twenty-seven were devoted to the duties of a station in which his conduct is shown by enduring records, and nearly forty years were devoted to the dis charge of professional duties which were more than ordinarily conspicuous. An ex amination of reliable sources of information will overthrow opinions which were long held respecting him. He was never a believer in slavery. The slaves who came to him in his youth upon the death of his father he promptly manumitted, and those who were infirm with age he supported while they lived. Throughout his professional life his services were available to blacks who claimed ' freedom, and to persons charged with viola
a citizen of Baltimore, alleging that he was imprisoned in Fort McHenry, without war rant and in violation of law, and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the end that he might be restored to liberty. The writ was issued and served upon the military officer in command. That officer declined to sur render the petitioner, but made a return to the Chief Justice which in most respectful language stated the grounds of his refusal, the essential portion of it being that the President had authorized him to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner not having been delivered, nor a sufficient reason given for the refusal, an at tachment for the officer was ordered. The attachment could not be served because the marshal was unable to enter the fort, and he made return accordingly. Judge Taney, recognizing the inability of the marshal to enforce the writ against the obviously su perior military force, made no further effort in that direction. But, being unwilling to give apparent assent to a doctrine which had not been recognized in our jurisprudence since the subserviency of an English court had permitted the historic outrage upon the rights of John Hampden, two centuries be fore, he filed an opinion in which, with much learning and clearness, he showed that legis lative action is indispensable to the suspen sion of the privilege of the writ, that it is not an executive discretion, and that if it were, the President could not transfer it to a sub ordinate. By that courageous and convinc Taney ing assertion established of the his rights titleof tofreemen, the gratitude Judge 1 of the last generation of men who may be permitted to enjoy constitutional liberty. What was the answer to his uncontrovertible exposition of the law? Nothing but a maxim : "amid arms the laws are silent." In times of great excitement those who imagine them selves to be superior to all others in love of
567
