The republic., 1850-12-04
The Law In Boston.


We copy from the Post, of Boston, an ar
ticle in reply TO the recent publication of MIR.
HUGHLs, concerning his visit to that city in
pursuit of fugitive from labor 1t would
seem distinctly, from this article, that many of
the embarrassments which Mr.. HUGHES met
with arose from his ignorance of the duties OF a
Judge and the commissioners. We have never
entertained doubt that the reflections cast
upon Mr. Justice WOODBURY. in this connexion
were entirely unjust, and the explanation given
by the Post of his conduct is entirely satisfac-
tory He seems, indeed, to have manifested
more than ordinary courtesy to Mr.. HUGHES,
under the circumstances; and to have shown
audable desire to fulfil all his duties under the
law in manner that would aid its execution
with the greatest weight Of Judicial influence
and character.
From the Boston Post.
We give place to u statement made by Mr.
Willis Ii. Hughes concerning his VISIT to Bos
ton, because 1t is connected with the exciting
events Of the day, but with no confidence what
ever in many OF Its most material assertions,
which will be quite surprising and novel to those
acquainted with the truth of the matters is the
discovery made by Mr. Hughes that +" Mr.. List is
eminent awyern'
ed and know that Hughes has entirely misrepre-
sented or misapprchcnded the course Of the judges,
the district attorney, and the commissioners 1t
is wholly untrue that there was any denial OF pro-
cess His case was treated precisely that of any
complainant in any other case would have been,
and either his own ignorance or neglect as to
preliminary proceeding which caused any mlsun-
standing in the matter. He was altogether wrong
in supposing that judges and commissioners were
bound to act his counsel, and he was equally
wrong in supposing that 1t was any part oil the
"A. AT, Iad hAn
| sented himself in proper manner, with a COM
plant and the necessary papers, he would have
been promptly heard; but when he went to judge
magistrate to get him to advise him how to pro-
ceed to apprehend a fugitive he would, of course.
get no counsel in the capacity of client to the
court that to try his case. This was his diff
Guilty, and probably the cause OF his mlsunder-
standing. Thus, when he applied to Judge Wood
bury he exhibited no complaint or legal creden-
lials The judge was then engaged in the midst
of trial of aborious patent cause, and he stated
his readiness to hear any matter as soon as that
could be disposed of. In fact he notified the coun-
sci that he might have to suspend that cause, with
out naming the reason but doubtless expecting that
complaint, In proper form, might be presented 10
the court.
Mr.. Hughes is equally out of his facts as to Mr..
Lunt, when he says that Mr. Lunt had no other
case. lie did have one from North Carolina The
party however, in that il turned out had
never been in Boston.
In relation to Mr. Commissioner Hallett, Hughes
is also materially wrong. The first knowledge MIR.
H. hau OF tne existence OF Sucn person was Inc
call at his house at midnight. His application to
Mr.. H. then to act as his counsel in fugitive
case. This was distinctly declined and the stran-
ger was told il was incompatible with the official
duty of commissioner Hughes neither gave his
own name any reference, nor exhibited a single
paper, except printed abolition document giving
an account of the proceedings in the OF Ham
let. For all that appeared in that interview, he
might have been an agent of the anti fugitive law
vigllant committee, rather than an attorney OF
claimant. He was informed that il he had any Of
fetal business he should be heard at the office at
o'clock. At that hour he called, and was informed
that if he had any complaint to submit it would be
heard, but he submitted none, presented no pa
pers, and did not give his name, and was not
ready to proceed. He seemed entirely Ignorant OF
the preliminary forms required by law. He was
told that complaint in writing must be made and
sworn to, and power of attorney, with the proper
evidence shown to authorize a warrant and il that
his purpose, he had better take counsel. He
desired to know where Thayer * Co. were to be
found, and their number was given to him, and he
left the office and did not return.
In reference to the other matters, with the other
con- missioners and the court, there are similar err
roneous statements, but enough has been stated to
show that the whole misapprchension grew from
the want of legal preparation by the agent The
other matters related in the communication OF MIR.
Hughes were correctly stated In the f'0sf and
strongly censured at the time they occurred. The
law naming the court first, the authority TO issue
such warrant; and, if the purpose honest
ly the test OF the law and not merely for political
effect, the highest authority known TO the law
the most proper and effective To insure its execu
ton. We have not the least doubt that the judges,
magistrates, and officers here have done, and will
do their duty, but they cannot be properly asked
to do more than their strict duty; and those whoex-
pect il should be taught better to understand the
laws and the process of their enforcement.