Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-12-06

the state courts as such admit the party to
bail. Whether they will look beyond the
warrant of commitment, when made by any
other than Judge of the courts of the u.
States, and enquire into the fact, is matter of
sound discretion to be regulated by the cir
cumstanccs ut each particular case. But it
is the opinion of this court that the state courts
aud Judges have concurrent Jurisdiction with
the courts and judges of the federal court in
all cases of illegal confinement under colour of
the authority of the United States, when that
confinement is not the consequence of suit
or prosecution pending in the courts of the
United States, IN which the allegation upon
which the commitment is made will be tried
AS therefore the commitment in question is
! connected with no such regular suit or prose-
cution, it is the opinion of this court that the
superior court of Henrico had jurisdiction of
the questions arising in this case.
In considering the second question propos-
ed, the general power of the Congress of the
U. States to authorize TIE arrest and commit
ment of offenders against the laws of the u.
States, by persons designated as holding Off
ces under the state governments, has been
brought into review. 1t has been commended
that the Congress of the U. States possesses
no such constitutional power, because the war
rant To arrest, and the decision upon evidence
that the accused ought, (by the laws of the
u. States,) to be committed for trial i'm the
courts Thereof, are judicial acts tlr,t those
who perform them, exercise portion of the
Judicial power of the U. States, which pow
er, can, cOnstitutionally, be exercised by such
courts alone, as have been, or may he esta-
blished by the constitution of the u States,
and laws made in pursuance thereof And
it is farther contended that the commitment
ordered in the present case is embraced by
the PRINCIPLES of this objection
Upon the question, how far, and in what
manner, justice of the peace of the state of
virginia, may decide that party brought be-
fore HIM shall be committed to Jail for trial,
and TO order his commitment accordingly
without exercising the judicial functions, with
| which he is clothed by the state, there is a
diversity OF opinion among the judges of this
court, and we have come to no definitive con-
| cllislon, whether the act of commitment as
required to be performed by the act of congress
called the Judicial act, he strictly ministerial
only, or partakng in part, of the judicial cha
racter, as those acts would be characterized
by the common law, and laws of Virginia.
But majority of the court are of opinion
that whether such acts OF commitment he
| strictly ministerial or not, as they would be
defined Ivy the common law, they are not such
acts as the constitution of the United States
intended To- vest exclusively in the courts
therein provided for. While it is admitted
that we may fairly refer to the common law,
and to the sages thereof for aid in determn-
ing what is the precise meaning of the first
section ofthe third article of the constitution
of the United States it is perfectly manifest
that literal adherence TO the common law
definition of jluridcal power, followed in eve
~ case, would impose a meaning on the ar
ticle in question, which never entered into
the heads of the trainers, or any one practi-
caliy engaged in carrying the constitution in
to effect To state Il single instance, the adj
minlstration of an oath. 1t any one act as
ancillary 10 the administration of Justice has
been uniformly called by the common law
writers judicial act, it is this one of admi-
nlstering an oath land yet can any man i'm his
senses believe that the trainers of our con-
stliution intended that every custom house of
icer, commissioners of the revenue or excise
commissioners to take dispositions, commits
} sioner in bankruptcy, and to settle various
Otherincidental and occasional matters, should
hold his office during good behaviour, and a,
stated times receive for his services com
4 pensatiOn not to be diminished during his con.
tinuance in office Most or all of these off
GERS and special commissioners have beer
authorised to administer oaths, and have don,
so, without an insinuation that they were ex
ercising the judicial powers of the Union.-
; The remark made on this part Of their duty
applies equally well to various other thing
of a seemingly judicial nature which they ar,
In the constant habit ofdoing. The commits
sloners to decide upon the claims on the Lou
isiana fund did exercise, and the commission
{ ers now deciding on the CLAIMS on the Flor
da fund must exercise quasi Judicial powers
general view OF which subjects is suificien
to shew that the term jud cial power, as used
In the constitution of the u. States, must b,
understood TO mean what those terms import
| ed at the time, not by resorting TO any rigid
technical definition but to their natural i'm
port, understood with reference to the subjec
matter in allusion to which they were used
Thus understanding the terms we are of OPT
, mon, that the constitution directs that all tn,
regular and permanent duties, which properly
belong to a court in the ordinary and popula
t signifcatiOn of that term, shall be performed
by the courts described in the constitution
the judges of which courts shall hold thei
Offices during good behaviour, &c. There i
therefore nothing in the constitution whicI
prevents ministerial officer or other person
by law directed to do and perform any act
; which may be necessary TO bring an accuse,
party before court possessing the judcia
, power ofdetermining on his guilt or limo
, cence. We are therefore of opinion, that com
! nitments made under the aforesaid act o
congress by the persons therein described, ar,
E lawful and right, provided they pursue the au
thOrity under which they act. But we ar
not to be understood as affirming that the con
gross of the United States can give jurisdiction
to, or require services of any officer of tn
state governments assuch. The direct contra
{ ry is the opinion Of the court but what w
I have affirmed and do affirm, u.s. that congress
may authorize any citizen of the u. States, t
perform any act which the constitution of tn
t U. States does not require TO be performed i
a different manner.