The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-18

Mr. HAMLlN wish 10 say but word in reply 10
the senator from kenueky and first in relation TO the
case which he has stated controversy which might
arise under laws eguatng assault and battery and false
imprisonment. ! did not for single moment suppose
that any territorial government would ever neglect TO
pass the necessary and proper laws regulating both OF
these matters but under each OF these the amount
OF the assault and battery committed, or the injury
ceved by the false Imprisonment would be the sum 10
issue; and il would be one which could not be
tanned except by the finding OF the jury would not be
the personal freedom OF the individually and II 1t were,
that OF individual could not IN any case be estimated
al $4,000, that being The amount required by statute TO
Mir. UNDERWOOD Mr.. President viii my friend
allow me In that the plea would be that he was
slaves and it would necessarily be the very issue TO be
tried for il slave, the defendant would have right 10
imprison him. II slaye he would have right TO- chas-
Use him il freeman, he could have neither OF these
rights; and il would be impossible 10 try case OF that
sort without bringing up strictly as in the amendment
have proposed The matter at issue would be as 70 tle
personal liberty Of the individual; and that will decide
the whole question.
Mr. HAMLIN Precisely There is question Of per-
sonal liberty not appealable.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD | propose to give an appeal in
that case.
Mr. HAMLIN, (resumng) In relation to the Difficult
ties arising under an appeal from right OF haeeas corpus
my simple is, that it is right which has been
exercised in all the States where that species Of property
has been helda right which has, from its very founda
% e ha aa me m ns Sas
gesed The argument, if worth anything, lies at the
very foundation OF the writ OF habeas corpus II The bill
does contain we SNAIL nave an
ment 10 the bill that will secure ii.
Mr. BADGER. Mr. President, do not intend TO en-
ter into discussion about this natter but am very de-
srous we should have vote upon this question. II is
very natural that my friend from Kentucky Mr. UNDER
wooDl should have preference for his own amendment
We almost always prefer those things which we orig
nate ourselves to those which originated by others
stand in condition OF entire indifference OF mind between
this amendment and the proposed by the senator
from New Hampshire; and am enabled to take an i'm
partial view OF both of them. | am opposed TO the
offered bV the Kentucky In the
first place. the amendment is exceedingly uncertain in its
application in involving personal liberty believe
that is the expression.
Now sir introduced into the bill in that connexion,
do say but may involve the question touching per-
confined idiots or unacs, or any other inquiry
in which II shall be matter affecting the discharge from
confinement of persons in restraint from any what
ever. Suppose man is charged with committing a
theft, burglary or murders i he takes out writ OF
personal liberty. and he would think for my
friend from Kentucky to say he was confined ~ jail by
the award of the judge and kept there, fort really was
transaction affecting his personal liberty
Now, Mr. President, as to the amendment proposed by
the senator from New Hampshire, Mr.. HALE,l why
should not adoptit Theproysion is clear l. is not
anything newly sprung up in the Senate sugges-
lion OF the senator from New Hampshire. II is an
amendment that carefully prepared Two years ago by
one Of The first legal minds 10 the country was pre-.
posed and adopted by very large vote OF the Senate in
the bill known the Clayton compromise bill There,
FORE prina faee, from the mere Tact of the case il IS
more likely to be popere be efiectualto be certain 10
answer the object in view, than the Interpolation OF
word that my friend from Kentucky wants 10 place there
As this matter about the difficulty arising sprngng
up, of of writ of error habeds corpus, there Is
no difficulty in that case than IN any other The
Judge has decided the upon the writ OF hdbeds corpus,
and he decides upon The evidence Ii the Judge makes
up the record upon that well any other and he does
not clerk TO assist him, the record in the contem.
plaon Of the law, is always made up BY the Judge II
he is competent to consider and decide the question: ne y
competent TO put in writing when he has considered and
decided it, upon what evidence he has come 10 the con-
clusion That clear in the bill Of exceptions rendered
to the Judge upon the trial Does he not DO mat Does
ton. and down the Judgment he has come to Is not
this the act of judgment The parties may prepare the
bill OF exceptions which is to be submitted to the judge
he must approve il according the evidence before him
and then, when approved by him, il becomes part OF
the record and is heard by the higher tribunal upon the
writ OF error Is il necessary in the appeal whea writ
OF hqbeas corpus before the judge, TO introduce
provision giving him authority to postpone the hearing
Why surely not He has the same authority to get his
proof there in any other action He has the same
authority 10 make provision for time for the complaining
party whose personal liberty is at stake lie has author
y over the whole subject AT all events 1t appears TO
me that this proposition definite clear, and satisfactory,
and has heretofore received the sanction oil the Senate
Even il my friends amendment will answer as WELL II Is
exactly ceriain and therefore think II would be
better adopt the amendment OF the senator from New
Hampshire
The question being then taken upon Mr.. US6kRwooDs
amendment, il was rejected.
The question then REQUIRED upon the amendment sub
mitted by Mr. Hale, modified by the mover
Mr. BERRIEN. Mr. President, the amendment may
be perfectly understood by Others but IS not UNDERSTOOD
BIZ me in the in which II is read understand
the amendment propose TO strike out the words which
limit the which is necessary to entile them to an
appeal and insert that which makes an exception to
the case OF questions involving personal liberty II that
be So the effect OF striking out these words Will be 10
take away all Imitation and in all to permit any
TO come up which should be decided in the territorial
court without reference TO any consideration. must
therefore ask that the section be read as Will stand II
amended.
fThe section was here read amended by Mr.. HALE
Mr. b. (resuming) One OF two things is certain
upon this amendment, | thnk-eher that II raises the
Limitation upon appeal in all other except this IN
yoyng the question OF personal freedom and two thou
sand dollars, destroys all limitations whatever The
bill provides
Wrts OF and appeals from the final decisions Of said
preme shall be allowed, and be taken TO the
Supreme Court OF the United States, In the
aud under regulations from the circuit
of the United States where the value OF the property the
in controversy, 10 be ascertaned by the oath or
affirmation OF either party other competent witnesses,
shall xceed thousand dollars.
Now if this is the provision, that they shall be taken
in the same manner and under the regulations"
and applies the amount in controversy then raises
the amount in all cases 10 two thousand dollars
Mr.. WEBSTER, lin his seat) So understand II.
MIR BERRlEN. II, on the other hand, as believe
the construction 10 be, the terms Gin the same manner
and under the same regulations do not apply to the
amount then the effect is TO all Limitation what
specify the amount Ii the words manner and reg
ulation" apply TO the amount there is necessity OF
specifying subsequently the amount which TO entitle
10 appeal Now, cir do not want to limit the appeal
in the Territory TO two thousand dollars. think the
Supreme Court OF the United States should have the