"_The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended_".(85)
Under our Constitution this may be done only "in case of rebellion or invasion" when "public safety may require it". For instance, in the World War, which you all remember, some dangerous person, some traitor, might have been arrested by the military authorities and detained in custody, and he could not be discharged upon a writ of habeas corpus, because a state of war existed, and public safety required that he be held. Of course in times of war persons engaged in the military service are not entitled to a trial in a civil court for their offense. They are tried for military offenses by court martial. That is a military court, where the judges are military officers, ordered by their superiors to sit and hear the evidence. There is not much formality. In grave offenses prompt action is necessary. Spies are caught, the courts organized, the evidence taken, a finding of guilty made, and the party shot, all perhaps within twenty-four hours. These are the necessary awful consequences of war. But can't you see now what a sense of security this little provision of our Constitution ought to bring to each one of us? We always know that in case of our wrongful arrest, a writ of habeas corpus will bring us before some court where we may have prompt inquiry into the reasons for invading our right to liberty, and prompt order for discharge if the arrest is not justified.
This writ issues not only in behalf of persons confined in jails and prisons, but also in every case where one is held by force against his will by another person, because this is a free country, and no man, whether a private citizen or public officer, has any power to restrain another against his will, unless such restraint is under legal proceedings with all the safeguards of the Constitution.
I remember a case when unfortunately a father and mother were separated and divorced. Their little boy was left with his mother. The judge decided that the father was a bad man and that he was not worthy to have charge of his son.
A few months later that father went to the house where the mother and boy lived, watched behind the hedge until the little boy was at play in the yard, when he seized him, jumped in an automobile which was waiting for him in the woods, and drove away at great speed. He took the boy to a boarding school in a neighboring State, telling the principal of the school that he wanted the boy safely kept until he should return from Europe. After many days the sheriff with the aid of detectives found where the boy was. The mother came to the school. Of course she was filled with joy when she saw her son. She thought that she could take him away with her at once, but the principal would not consent. He said that he had no knowledge of whether or not she was the boy's mother; that she had no right to take him away; and that his duty was to return the boy to the man who had left him in the school. The appeal of the mother and the tears of the boy were in vain.