Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1850-11-07

IO1 SeH-TeuIess' INV a. ~ s'iS 90
slave, he has no cause to complain oil
this bill it adds no coertion to that
which his owner himself might, at his
Iown will, rightfully exercise; and all
the proceedings which it Institutes are
but SO much of orderly judicial authority
linterposed between him and his owner,
and consequently of protection TO him,
and mitigation of the exercise directly
by the owner himself of his personal
Authority. This is the constitutional and
legal view of the subject, as sanctioned
by the Supreme Court; and to that !
limit myself; 80
The act o1 the 18th of February, 1893,
before alluded to, SO far as it respects
any constitutional question that can arise
out of this bill, is identical with it. 1t
authorizes the like arrest of the fugitive
slave, the like trial, the like judgment,
the like certificate, with the like author
ity to the owner, by virtue of that GER
ltificate as his warrant, to remove him to
the State or Territory from which he
escaped. And the constitutionality Of
. that act, in all those particulars, has been
affirmed by the adjudications of State
tribunals and by the Courts Of the United
States without single dissent, so far as
| know. (Bald,cin's c. c. r., SIT,
I579.)
conclude, therefore, that so far as the
act of the 18th of February, 1893, has
been held to be constitutional, this bill
must also be so regarded; and that the
custody, restraint, and removal to which
the fugitive slave may be subjected under
the provision of this bill, are all lawful;
and that the certificate to be granted to
the owner is to be regarded as the act
and judgment of ajudicial tribunal having
competent jurisdiction.
With these remarks as to the consti-
nationality of the general provisions of
the bill, and the consequent legality of
the custody and confinement to which the
fugitive slave may be subjected under it,
| proceed TO a brief consideration of the
more particular question you have pro-
pounded in reference TO the writ of ha-
beas corpus, and of the last clause of the
lsirh section, above quoted, which gives
rise to that question.
My opinion, as before expressed, is,
that there is nothing in that clause or sec
ton which conflicts with, or suspends,
or was intended to suspend, the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus. | think
so, because the bill says not one word
about that writ; because, by the Consti-
tuition, Congress is expressly forbidden
to suspend the privilege of this writ,
-" unless when in cases of rebellion or
f" invasion the public safety may require
"it;" and therefore the suspension by
this act (there being neither rebellion
nor invasion) would be plain and pal
pable violation of the Constitution, and
no intention to commit such violation
of the Constitution, of their duty, and
their oaths, ought to be imputed TO them
upon mere constructions and implica-
tons and, thirdly, because there is no
incompatibility between these provisions
Of the bill and the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus, in its utmost constitu-
tional latitude.
Congress, in the case Of fugitive slaves,
as IL al other cases within the scope Of
its constitutional authority, has the UNI
questionable right to ordan and prescribe
for what causes, to what extent, and in
what manner persons may be taken into
custody, detained, or imprisoned With
out this power they could not fulfil their
constitutional trust, nor perform the or
binary and necessary duties of Govern
mcnt. II was never heard that the ex-
ercise of that legislative power was any
encroachment upon or suspension of the
privilege of the habeas corpus. 1t is
only by some confusion of ideas that
such conflict can be supposed to ex
list. 1t is not within the province or
privilege of this great writ to loose those
whom The lalo has bound. That would
be TO put writ granted by the law in
opposition TO the law-to make one part
of the law destructive of another. This
writ follows the law and obeys the law.
1t is issued upon proper complaint, To-
make inquiry into the causes of commit
ment or Imprisonment, and its sole rem
edial power and purpose is to deliver the
party from "all manner of illegal con-
iinement." 6 Black. Com, 1917 If,
upon application TO the Court or judge
for this writ, or if, upon its return, it
shall appear that the confinement COM
planned of was ta,gfil, the writ in the
first instance would be refused, and in
the last the party would be remanded to
his former fa'ctd custody.
The condition of one in custody as
fugitive slave, under this law, so far as
respects the writ of habeas corpus, is
precisely the same as that of all other
prisoners under the laws of the United
States. The privilege of that writ re-
mains alike TO all of them, but to be
Judged of, granted, or refused, discharged