Weekly national intelligencer., 1850-11-16


pus and enovng from the commissioner tohe
judge courssung the writ Thecae supposes the party
not slave, bot Is Free and be inevitably be dschag
ed from custody If hat fact be made appear the court
person who really fugitive from service should resort
to the process and this fact made appear the
court, presume he would be remanded to the custody of
the claimant and restored the jurisdiction of the Judge
commissioner Is also to be observed that the writ of ha
beas corpus should be obtained before the certificate grant
ed After il is granted think the matter will have become
sdcGta, ard, like other Of lawful commitment,
beyond the reach of the courts.
But suppose the right to this remedial writ to be taken
away by the act Of 1885, il more oppressive
that respect than the act of l793 under which we
lived upwards of half century, only without having the
pain and grief Of seeing Of color carried away but if
President Quincy correctly informed, without single sce
having been removed from Massachusetts by force Of
proceedings under that The provision Of the act of 793
corresponding to that Of the of 1850, cited above,
these words
Sand upon proof the satisfaction of such Judge magis
rate either by oral testimony affidavit taken before and
certified BY magistrate of any such State Territory that
the person arrested DOTH under the laws of the State or
Territory from which he she fled, service labor
the claiming him her. it shall be the duty Of such
judge magistrate give certificate thereof to such
attorney, which shall be sufficient
for removing the said fugitive from labor the State
ritory from which he or she fed"
The legal effect of this provision in the holder Of the
certificate moested, would be the If the inter
ference Of courts judges expressly prohibited is
in the act Of $780, The certificate declared to be sufficient
from Dhich he ed Does this completely and efectualy
the jurisdiction Of all and tribunals aer the pass
ing of the certificate?
If writ Of habeas corpus issued, the prisoner could
not be taken away from the holder Of the certificate, If law
fully granted Congress- the highest power in this
try this subject has declared that this certificate shall be
sufficient warrant for the removal Of the fugitive to the
State whence he fed Il would not be "sufcient warrant
IL the fugitive could be discharged by State court from the
custody Of bis warder This cspnot be done any than
the of any State through which officer is conduct
ing any person charged with crime, discharge such cu
pr This view is confirmed by the opinion Of Supreme
Judicial Court delivered by Chief Justice Shaw, Chat model
of judicial integrity and leaning in the Of the Com
monwealth ps. Aves-l8 Pickering, l98-n which the
Court (Shaw G. j. Putnam Wilde and Norton Justices)
say
"Ths opinion be considered extending to
where the of fugitive slave, having produced cer
cae according the law Of the United States bona tide
removing such slave his donic and in doing
through free State Where the law confers right favor
by necessary implication gives the means OF enjoying
In Avess case the child which the subject of
plant had been brought into Massachusetts voluntarily BY
lis mistress and for that reason discharged But the
lest its opinion should be considered to extend beyond
its limits qualify by the expression last cited They
say, discharge this child from the custody and control Of
its it brought here by her, and is there
fore ugive-but do not mean to say that every
who is brought here by his master voluntarily en
tied 10 be discharged The law of the United States auho
rzes the of fugitive to pursue and arrest him, and
obtain certificate of his right from judge or magistrate
and if after doing the master in carrying home his slave is
passing through this State he cannot be interrupted by the
Of this State he in the exercise Of right guaan
tied TO him by law This is fair paraphase, think, of
what the say. Whether it is not, every one can
Judge for himself for have quoted their words accurately
No. THE question has been proposed to me, whether
The provision of this by which commssie appoint
ed by the empowered to examine claims and grant
certificates under it, consistent with the constitution OF the
United States My is in the affirmative. The
Of their duties requires the exercise oudgment but does
not follow that they technically judges They are eI
aminng magistrates. They inquire into this description Of
complaints, they do into complaints against officers and
mariners Of vessels, and other persons charged with offences
and crimes against the laws of the United States OF Whatever
degree they may be- Their powers analogous In this
respect those of justices of the peace These mags
receive and hear complaints, and 1t s their duty to
commit the party accused If sufficient is shown for
trial by court-but they not judges The act OF 1913
conferred the power of hearing complaints against fugves
from labor upon the justices Of the OF each State and
that has been declared to be constitutional not only by
the Supreme Court Of the United Stateshe highest trbu-
nal in this country and from which there appeal in mat
concerning the construction Of the constitution Of the
United States and the of Congress-but also empha
calIy by Supreme judicial Court in 1928 (Com-
monwealth Griffith, Pickering ii and again in 1885,
ncidentslly Commonwealth Aves l6 PikeriDg 1913
If the authority thus conferred all the justices of the peace
in the United States had been considered to be judicial
power and those magistrates thus raised to the gnlty OF
been held unconstitutional for that for the judges Of
the courts Of the United Satesnfior we'll supreme
hold their Office during gnod behavior, and receive stated
compensation from the United States for servces-no by
fees hut by salaries As the mode OF appointment there
is no difficulty. The constitution of the United States
ques the President appoint the judges Of the Supreme
Court with the advice and of the Senate but it
hozes Congress vesthe appointment OF such inferior oh
they think proper in the President alone, or IN the
courts Of w, or in the Heads Of Departments. Cart 2.
Sec. Q
The act Of 1850 imposes the duty Of hearing complaints
against ugtves from service certain officers termed
mssioner who by the Of Congress OF 1912 and 1917
are appointed by the circuit Of the United States
These officers have been the examining magistrates OF the
United States for thirty years and upwards, and many hum
dreds-perhaps thousaudof culpts have been committed
by them trial. without far know, any exception
being made to their authority. think then, that the act Of
1850 is not unconstitutional for this should have
said SO when speaking Of the substitution of commits
soners for Justices Of the peace had supposed there
any doubt on subject The Justices Of peace, when act
ing under the law Of 793 merely commissioners The
Supreme Court of the United States in the case Of Pfgg
Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, is Peters, $685. decided
that magistrates could be compelled 10 execute the
powers conferred on them by the Of l793 though they
authorized to they chose unless prohibited by
la~ of the State. This the fact in Pennsylvania
1t may interest the readers of these pap piece of
cuous antiquarian history know the origin OF the practice
ration between the United Colonies Of New England
namely, Massachusetts, New Plymouth, Connecticut, New
Haven, dcmads in l643 and made as the preamble de-
cas by those who call into these parts Of America
with and the end and a namely to advance the
kingdom Of Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberty
Of the gospel in purity with peacethere is the following
provision It also agreed that if servant run away