The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1850-11-07

No lawyer would urge, before a Court, such

No lawyer would urge, before Court, such
an absurd construction of the act of Con.
gross, as, tina: il means that no evidence
should be heard on the part of the alleged
fugitive. IF such were the intention of the
Legislature, it was easy TO express it in une-
quivocal terms. In truth there is nothing Q.
quivocal in the language of the act lit for
bids the Judge TO hear the testimy of the flu.
gitiye, but not the testimony of disinierested
Witnesses. 1t almost seems, that nothing but
a. desire to render the law odious, for the
sake of political agitation could never have
led 10 so gross misconstruction, and so
great libel on national legislature.
1t has been objected also TO this law. that
1t suspends the habeas eorpus-inasmuch as it
enacts that the certificate of the Judge, or
Commissioner "sha'l be conclusive of the
| right of the persons in whose favor granted,
to remove such fugitive, and shall prevent
all molestation of such person or persons, by
any process issued by any Court, Judge,
Magistrate, or other person whomsoever !"
But this is a mistake. The truth is, that this
provision of the lew, forbidding the testimo-
ny. of the fugitive to be received, and forbid
dmg interference-by other process, after a
| certificate, is but an enactment of an eetab-
lished principle Of the common law, added
through extreme caution, but wholly unne-
cessary. "The writ of habeas corpus is un-
doubtedly an immediate REMEDY for every H..
legal imprisonment ) but no imprisonment is
! illegal when the process is justification of
the officer !, and process, whether by writ or
warrant, is legal, whenever it is not defec-
tive in the frame of it and has issued in the
ordinary course of justice, from court or
magistrate having jurisdiction of the subject
matier."-(Common wealth VS. Lecky, Il
Watts; ST., :.
A person held as fugitive under the Ger
tficate of judge or magistrate, under this
act is legally imprisoned, under process
"from court or magistrate having i.risdic-
tion,'' and cannot be released by any other
court or magistrate, ona writ of habeas cor.
pus or homine replegiando. The act of 1898
has no such provision as that which is the
subject of complaint in the present case /;
yet i'll the case of wright VS.. Deacon, Is
Sergt. and Rawle 62,) the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania decided that certificate under
that act was legal warrant to remove the
fugitive to the State of Maryland, and no
writ Of homine replegiando would lie from a
State Court to try the question of freedom /;
and tha, writ, issued under such eircum-
stances, was Gin violation of the constritu.
ton of the United States"
The chief difference between the fugitive
act of 1850 and that of 1898, is, that the
former allows a warrant 10 be issued by a
Judge, and the arrest to be made by pub
lie officer, and imposes more stringent PEN
alties on those who interfere, by, violence,
10 prevent the execution of legal process
Those who believe that the constitution and
laws of their country should be regarded
and obeyed, have no ground of complaint,
and those who do not, will continue to rail
at both, as usual. .
am happy TO say that my brother Kane
fully concurs with me in the views | here
express.
am, very respectfully; yours, &C., &c.
r. C. GMER.
To CHARLES GIBBONS, Esquire.