78

Board of Police. I think I have shown sufficient cause why
this writ of habas corpus should be quashed, and I will not
dwell upon this point.

ARGUMENT OF MR. SCHLEY.

Mr. Schley, Esq., said, "before I proceed to discuss the
respective cases now under examination, I propose very brief-
ly to discuss the duties and powers of local judges in respect
to the writ of habas corpus. It is perfectly unimportant to
consider what were the duties of judges in England in early
times : which have been so elaborately discussed on the other
side. It was the duty of your Honor to grant the writs in
the cases before you, otherwise you would have been liable in
a penalty of $500, at suit of the parties making application.
The parties are before you, and we are to consider what now are
your duties, and powers under the law. Mr. Schley then
read the state law of Maryland on the subject, which requires
that a judge shall immediately inquire into the cause of 'the
caption and detention of the parties imprisoned, and that he
shall discharge them upon insufficient cause. Also, that a
party many controvert the return, or plead any matter, and
summon witnesses to testify in relation to it. The argument
on the other side, although, under the law, you may hear the
evidence of witnesses, that their testimony is to be disregard-
ed, and you must remand the prisoners into custody.

Is that the meaning of the law ? That you cannot go be-
hind the return to show that the charges are false. Such a
narrow construction of the law was never designed and never
claimed. If this could be done, the writ of habeas corpus
would be undeserving of the eulogies which have ever been
pronounced upon it as the safeguard of every citizen to his
freedom and liberty.

Mr. Schley hoped that political feeling or bias will never
enter into any court or influence its decision. He would re-
tire from practice in any case where he had reason'to believe
that political feeling would bias the result.

The Governor's opinion of his power to remove the Police
Commissioners is concurred in almost unanimously by the
legal profession and by a large preponderance of the voters
of the city.

He next referred to the case of Sheriff Thompson. The
Judge of the Criminal Court had no right to issue the
warrant for his arrest without oath or affirmation except
upon view. Did Judge Bond act upon view ? Could he see
through the walls of the court house ? It is absurd to say
he acted "upon view.'' The grand jury were in session, and
could have indicted the parties had there been ex parte testi-
mony to justify their action.

Every man, before commitment, must hear the charges