The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-02-28

q Boston JouraaL1
IA .u.s.. slsa 81 Eisaur Wright
On Dts eAa,gs Of aiding IA tAs rescue 81 ihe fugitive sss
Saadrsch-U s. Comai.sioasr's Court Before Mr..
Commissioner b. + Hapsa
Third pAY-Thursday, February 30.
Decision Of s Commissioner Wdght held for trial
Agreeably TO adjournment. the came in al ten
o'clock The court room was already densey hled with
specalors apparently quite 10 learn the decision
OF the commissioner IN this, The first OF the kind
which has ever been examined under the recent law.
The commissioner Immediately proceeded 10 give has
decision in this important and interesting fol-
Opinion.
This examination, il comes before me. is preEni-
nary inquiry by force OF the act OF August 80 ls42 5h
United States Statutes al Large SID giving power the
commissioners OF the circuit court Of the United States
for any crime offence against the United States TO ar
rest imprison. bail the party charged, the may
be- for trial before such court OF the United States
cog OF the offence To unlawfully obstruct
process or the administration OF law an offence gene
rally but the crime here charged in the complaint upon
the defendant aiding assisting and abeiung the person
therein named, who lawfully held in the custody oil
the marshal OF the United States, under arrest fugi
tive from service labor pursuant 10 the act OF Seplem
Der is, 1850, chapter 90
And the offence created by that in the seventh
section is rescung attempting 10 such fugitive
from service or labor from the custody of the claimant
his agent attorney, other persons lawfully assisting
when arrested, pursuant to the authority given in the
act or aiding, abeiDg, assisting such person, di-
recy indirectly. in escaping from such claimant, his
agent attorney, other person persons legally
thorzed aoresad-that Is, any person legally au-
thozed by this act 10 hold restrain such person in
custody.
II is made the duty of the commissioners having con-
current jurisdiction therein with the Judges OF the cir
cult and district courts OF the United States TO issue pro
under this act, and OF the marshas aud their depu
ties 10 execute all such warrants and precePs when to
them directed. .#
The proof in the present is, that warrant was
duly issued upon the proper preliminary evidence for the
arrest Of SbadIach, coored person, alleged to be
fugitive from service or labor and who had escaped from
ahp he al In
laws of that State, and claimed by the agent
torney OF the person whom such labor service
the warrant, he had arrested the within named
Shadrach and then had him-to wit, on The day OF
alleged rescue--before the commissioner for examina-
ton. ...
1t has been objected by the defence that the warrant
and of the officer conclusive, except in the
for which the return was made Butthey are clearly
conclusive OF the fact OF arrest IN that Case aud titus
prove that at the time of the alleged party
claimed and held in legal custody by the proper officer.
under lawful warrant was so held under arrest pur.
suant 10 the act OF September IS, 1850.
While arrested as alleged fugitive, and after he
was committed by the commissioner tocose custody in
the hands OF the marsha for the very proper purpose of
giving time prepare his defence against the clam uE
his person. and whe Tor the want OF any other place of
custody provided by the United States he restrained
and kept in the u s. courtroom, mob burst into the
ROOM and against the resistance OF the oces rescued
the prisoner.
The objection taken and much insisted on by the
learned counsel for the defendant is, that the prosecu
hon must prove armaveiy that the prisoner rescued
while under the Identical Shadrach claimed,
and that he held to service and labor by the laws
Virginia. This would involve the trial of the question
OF claim the absence OF the person claimed That,
the hearing oil charge OF the offence OF rescue, the
trial OF HE claim, which interrupted by the escape,
first be disposed OF, before party could be prose
cuted Tor aiding in such escape. The hearing OF the
claim is, TO some extent, judicial and determines the
matter, but the present hearing only preliminary
ground taken be correct construction OF the law. it
would seem 10 follow that, IN every OF an arrest
may be made with mpuni,y because the trial OF
The claim 10 The service could not be determined alter the
escape.
II The objection does not 60 10 this extent, but
only that there must be ptnd ace evdsnce that the
son rescued was fugitive IRON service or labor, and
was claimed such, mat evidence for all the
OF this hearing found IN the warrant aud reurn and
the ideniy OF the party claimed Is connected with the
and return by the testimony of the deputy marshal
that The person rescued was the person arrested under
the warrant
The SIKH section of the &C, refers to the person who
claimed before ad Indication such alleged fugitive"
and this his relation until the hearing UPON the clam
shall be concluded The following makes
an offence TO rescue suea fugitive" while 50 arrest
ed" IN pursuance 10 the Authority given by the act In
this the evidence from the warrant the records OF
the court IN Virginia IN pursuance OF the act, and the
testimony OF Mr. Commissioner Curtis aud the deputy
marshal, are satisfactory TO my mind IN making out
priiHa face on this point
The defendant If able might have rebutted it by proof
that the wrong person arrested, that he
fugitive under the statute but such evidence has
been offered; and the escape OF the alleged fugitive by
the aid OF those who would probably have defended him
that ground, they bad lawful right to do, had
such defence been available 10 be received, least
IN preliminary inquest MS tending 10 prove that no such
ground could be taken. The objection, II OF any force,
may be urged in another form OF trial, where the
construction OF the law 10 be judcally settled by
petent tribunal but IN this preliminary bearing II is not
my duty TO SET aside the law upon nice critical or echn
cal objections.
hold therefore, that the body OF the crime (bai is,
the offence contemplated by the 7A secon) is sufficiently
proved.
This only remaining inquiry ~, whether the offence
charged IL sufficiently made out against the defendant;
and this question have power TO decide the issue
OF guilty guilty The simple issue here is, (as IN
all preliminary matters in hearing before examining
magistrate, not having full jurisdiction over the offence,
whether there is sufficient evidence 10 send the party 10
the proper tribunal for inquest before the grand jury
My decision, therefore, have effect upon the guilt
innocence of the defendant, and only determine
court Of the United States having cognizance OF the
alleged offence.
In coming TO a decision, am h0,nd TO take the mani
feet weight OF the evidence, II II make out such case
IN the best discretion OF the gslrae, would require
and authorize grand jury to lind true bill OF indct
ment; and am obliged come 10 that conclusion with
out any doubt or hesitaDcy IN my own judgment.
The reasons for this conclusion II unnecessary TO
state with minueness.
The defendant present AT the time the lswless act
of violence committed Whether the evidence tends
to show any previous concert design is not material
s said that he present reporter and the nature
and importance OF the duty OF true reporter have been
well stated by the learned counsel for the defence But
no, within the province of a reporter and il that priv
lepe used To and lis ofhcers and IN Su