Jackson, Tatlow (fl. 1862-1873) Authorities cited antagonistic to Horace Binney's conclusions on the writ of habeas corpus.
High-resolution images are available to schools and libraries via subscription to American History, 1493-1943. Check to see if your school or library already has a subscription. Or click here for more information. You may also order a pdf of the image from us here.
Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC08599.04 Author/Creator: Jackson, Tatlow (fl. 1862-1873) Place Written: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Type: Pamphlet Date: 1862 Pagination: 1 v. : 27 p. ; 21.5 x 14 cm. Order a Copy
Published by John Campbell. Jackson states "Having carefully read Mr. Horace Binney's pamphlet 'The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus under the Constitution,' and conscientiously believing the doctrine therein inculcated to be of an anti-Republican tendency, and the conclusion- 'The President being the properest and the safest depository of the power (to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus) and being the only power which can exercise it under real and effective responsibilites to the people'- to be untrue, and not safe ... I feel it to be a duty ... to make public the result of such investigations on the subject as my limited time has permitted me to make." Tatlow's review of Binney consists of the first eight pages of this pamphlet. The second section, 19 pages in length, is entitled "Martial Law: what is it, and who can declare it?" Cover is missing.
Horace Binney, an influential American legal figure, served as a United States Representative from Pennsylvania 1833-1835. In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus for all military related cases. Suspension of this writ, which is guaranteed by Article I of the United States Constitution, provoked much controversy. Binney's pamphlet, which supported Lincoln's decision, also ignited fierce debate.
Citation Guidelines for Online Resources
The copyright law of the United States (title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.