The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1850-11-20

oAasa n tAia provisiaA were not IN
DE act, would not receive he teEti.
monT Of the prisoner % prove that he
was NOT The person described. or thar
he wss 4 free nan. II would hea temp
tation TO perjury. which no tribunal
should permit 20 be presented 10 any
nan No lawyer would urge. before !
Court, saeh an absurd construction d
the act Of Congress. a. that il means
that no evidence should he heard on the
part Of the alleged fugitive. IL such
we're the intention Of the legislature. il
Was easy to express IL in unequivoeal
terms. In truth there is nothing equi-
vocal in the language Of the act; il for.
bids the judge 70 hear the testimony d
the fugitive. but not the testimony Of
disinteresfed witnesses. IL almost
seems. that nothing but desire TO rem
der the law odieas. for the sake Of po-
litical agitation. could ever have led "a
so grUss a misconstructicn, and sogrezi
libel on our national legislature.
II has been objected also TO this Law,
that il suspends the kabeas corpus act
inasmuch as itenacts thatthe certificates
of the Judge, or Commissioner. /" shall
be conclusive Of the right Of tie persons
in whose favor granted, TO remove such
fugitive. and shall prevent all mclests-
tion Of such person or persons. by any
process issued by any Court, Judge.
Magistrats, or other person ,FhUmso-
ever" But this is "a mistake. The truth
is. that this provision Of the law, for
bidding the testimony Of the fugitive TO
perceived. and fOrhidding interference
BY other process. after certificate. il
butaR enactment Of an established prin-
ciple of the common law. added through
extreme caution, but wholly unneces-
sary. The writ ofhabeas corpus is I'M
doubtedly an immediate remedy for
euery illegal imprisonment; but no inn
prisonment is Illegal when the process
is a justification Of the officer :and pro-
cess, whether by writ OF warrant, is le-
gal, whenever It is not defective in the
frame Of it, and has issued in the ordi-
nary course Of justice, from court or
having jurisdiction Of the
subject matter. "-(Commcnwealt VS..
Lecky, Watts 67.)
A person held as fugitive under the
certificate ora Judge or Magistrate, un-
der this act. is legally imprisoned. I'M
Ter process " from a court or masis-
rate having jurisdiction" and cannot
,e released BIZ any other court or mag
strate, on a writ Of habeas corpus or
iorsine repiegiDido. The act of l79S
las no such provision as that which is
he subject of complaint in the present
Ease; yet in the case of Wright VS..
Deacon, Is Scret. and Rawle, g., the
supreme Court Pennsylvania decided
hat certificate under that act was a
cgal warrant to remove the fugitive to
he State of Maryland. and no writ Of
!omine rspiegiando would lie from a
State Court to try the question Of free
lD,n; and that writ, issued under
Iach circumstances, was in violation
,f the Constitution Of the United
states"
The chief difference between the
fugitive act Of $40 and that Of 1898, is,
hat the former allows a warrant to be
'sued by a Judge, and the arrest to be
lade BY public officer, and imposes
iore stringent penalties on those who
Interfere, by violence, to prevent the
xecution OF legal process. Those who
'elieve that the constitution and laws
{ their country should be regarded and
beyed, have no ground of complaint,
nd those who do not, will continue to
all at both as usual.
am happy TO say that my brother
Kane fully concurs with me in the
Jews ! here express.
am very respectfully, yours, &C.,
r. G.. GREER.
To CHARLES GIBBONS, Esq.