Taney, Roger Brooke (1777-1864) Decision of Chief Justice Taney, in the Merryman case, upon 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 #: GLC08599.12 Author/Creator: Taney, Roger Brooke (1777-1864) Place Written: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Type: Pamphlet Date: 1862 Pagination: 1 v. : 16 p. ; 22.5 x 14.5 cm. Order a Copy
Published by John Campbell. Second addition. Taney states "The Constitution provides, as I have before said, that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' It declares that 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated' ... It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a Court of justice. And these great and fundamental laws, which Congress, itself, could not suspend, have been disregarded, and suspended, like the Writ of Habeas Corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms ... I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power had been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome..." Cover is missing. This pamphlet is in fragile condition. Duplicate of GLC08557.
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. In opposition to Lincoln's action, Taney upheld that the executive did not have the power to suspend the writ.
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.