The language in the constitution is, “charged with felony, or other crime.” Is the constitution satisfied with a charge upon suspicion? It is to be regretted that no American adjudged case has been cited to guide the court in expounding this article. Language is ever interpreted by the subject matter. If the object were to arrest a man near home, and there were fears of escape if the movement to detain him for examination were known, the word charged might warrant the issuing of a on suspicion. Rudyard, (reported in Skin.) 676, was committed to Newgate for refusing to give bail for his good behavior, and was brought before the common pleas on . The return was, that he had been complained of for exciting the subjects to disobedience of the laws against seditious conventicles, and upon examination they found cause to suspect him. Vaughan, chief justice, “Tyrrel and Archer v. Wild, held the return insufficient—1st. because it did not appear but that he might abet frequenters of conventicles in the way the law allows; 2d. to say that he was complained of, or was examined, is no proof of his guilt; and then to say that he had cause to suspect him, is too cautious; for who can tell what they count a cause of suspicion, and how can that ever be tried? At this rate they would have arbitrary power, upon their own allegation, to commit whom they pleased.”

From this case, it appears that suspicion does not warrant a commitment, and that all legal intendments are to avail the prisoner. That the return is to be most strictly construed in favor of liberty. If suspicion in the foregoing case did not warrant a commitment in by its officers, of a citizen of , might not the objection be urged with greater force against a commitment of a citizen of our , to be transported to another, on suspicion? No case can arise demanding a more searching scrutiny into the evidence, than in cases arising under this part of [p. 136]