The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-04-15

I shOWlng, hFft, inc WNFfnnt 90
substance and showing next illegal delay In
IT, and one. which by tself raised y presumption Z
fraud in the Marshal And, these failed he tina
the Judge himself now hear and examine the crnina
charge against sinmsor, il declining that admit him
bail upon 1t
| Judge Woodbury. inquired II anything more was de
sired either side to be said in respect the habsa
corpus On the reply that there not hc proceeded L
reInark in substance IN follows -
1t proper to say that the proceeding before me not
an application to discharge from custody Of tho Marshal
the prisoner Smms fugitive slave but the petition
Tor the habds corpus confined exclusively to the aega
ton Of his being held. by criminal warrant and which
Issued on comlant for assault officer OF the
United States while executing local process and 1t ask
merely that he may be discharged from custody so far
held under that warrant
The writ fho1eas corpus by which no has brough,
before me- also confined specially to the same inquiry
There seems then on such collateral question Of
mere law little occasion for vast crowd any high
public excitement
The first objection IL to the legality Of the warrant
its face But every professional knows the difference
between what Is required in such warrint-ncrcy like
mesne to bring the party before magistrate for
examination and final warrant Of commitment in exc
cuton ola scntenccor warrant to search the premises
u q suspected person.
The cited, where warrants bad their face
all u this last and not of the kind like this
They arc TOO Tor defects not existing even IN ths-such
as the want Of an oath-when oath to this appears
in Cranch the want Of any offence for the commit
men described at all whereas here il alleged to DO the
offence Of obstructng the complainant in the service Of
legal precept-or in the from the
Reports, setting out carefully the promises to be
searched and the of the person suspected
when here the respondent il accurately described.
But besides this the present warrant after stating
what has been suggested Is fuller than most precepts is
sued merely for arrcst-and much fuller than the old
writ for insulated rospass in all to get parties
into the Kings bcnch-aad then declare against them
and try them contract other Of action
For the trial hearing ia the declaration
pL it. here well as in England and not ON the writ
And the warrant TO arrest l. merely to bring the party in
and then to exercise jurisdiction and decide tho
plant or no.. as that may be sufficient.
Here, in the itself the respondent is referred
10 what Is fully set forth i'm the complaint the
for which he Is to be arrested and tried And in
The return Of the Marshal copy Of the complaint is in
GUIDED and is conceded contain every allegation
cessary to give jurisdiction TO the Commissioner and JUS
fifty the arrest.
The question on this first objection likewise is not
one between the compliments, Butman and 5imms
thcr Of them and the commissioner, but whether the
Marshal, executive officer Is not justified in making
an arrest as required in the preccpt on this warrant
1t seems to me, clearly. that he was.
There is pretence Of want Of sufficient for
such arrest The offence stated to have been actu
ally committed IL conceded to have occurred and MIR.
List said to be Of the prisoners counsel repre-
scented in the argument for him, to have made CON-
plant, that it still higher crime, viz assault
with intent to KILL and for which he Is stated to have
obtained another from the State authorities
But that it was committed rather against the United
States authorities and the Union, andshould be inves
gated by her Commissioner and the offender arrested by
her Marshal Is manifest from the fact that it
mtted officer assistant to one acting under
her laws while executing OF her precepts and in
der to carry into effect provision Of her constitution
and acts of Congress
That constitution and these laws must be maintained
against all violence the United States must to
exist government Applausc, but promptly checked
by the officers They must be maintained, too rather
by precepts like this issued by the public officers Of the
United States and by the request Of their prosecuting
officer, than by a complaint and warrant made before
State magistrate by of the prisoners counsel
against his clienta kind Of professional service
and whether public or private motives can better be
inquired hereafter when that conduct may be brought
in question for other purposes.
This assault on an United States officer obstruct him
in serving the process Of the United States and issued
subject within the cognizance Of the United Statcs
made penal by United states law passed the very
operation and Judge Washington in the Circuit Court,
had held it to be most important provision to the
cuton Of all laws Of the United States
And without enforcing which. the administration Of
justice under the United States constitution likely
to be utterly FRUSTRATED.
Why any one Of tho prisoners counsel should inter
fere and endeavor to turn 1t into offence against the
State aud punish their client for II there when the
injured party and the prosecuting officers have not gone
there looks extraordinary and does not entitled to
any special encouragement by the authorities Of the
United States.
The prisoner has a claim to sympathy for thus being
harased by two prosecutions for the assault and
indeed for the offence itself than Others IT, In his
ignorance others have to by cxhoratons
TO murder the public officers when attempting to arrest
and fugitives to their masters, in conformity to
the public laws. Ciuch sensation in the audiencel
The second ground for claiming a discharge Of the
prisoner was the delay taking him before the Com
missioner to be examined this criminal complaint
and the cxceptonabic facts connected with it.
The usual course in criminal proceedings to
have examination follow speedily on arrest, and an
unnecessary and injurious delay was ccnsurable
But that could seldom render the warrant invalid, or
entle the prisoner to absolute discharge, though II
might properly expose the officers who did 1t to civil
action NJ times, an Indictment.
In the cited from Barnwen and Cresswell, thu
prisoner not discharged from the criminal arrest
Mr. sumner said he did not mean to contend that the
thus became invalid but that by this and other
facts the arrest would be.
The Judge replied If the warrant stll remained in full
force how could the be- valid IL made in the
proper FORM there had been escape sincet was for
an offence admitted have been committed, and the
fact Of more delay If Illegal was to be punished collte
MI etteisl
the arrest.
on the contrary, the whole ground Of principle, on
which could be held Illegal failed the facts set out
in this return When adudged Illegal 1t generally had
been because the prisoner thus deprived OF his IL
bcrty several days Il held by only that one warrant
But here the shows earlier arrest by another
process and detention under 1t up to the present time
he had not been imprisoned or detained single hour
by this alone There by IT, therefore, no mprison
mcnt or injury In the cases cited however. he was
held in confinement by the warrant alone, which was
complained Of and thus was injured and imprisoned by
IL long That could not be Justified Every
but in Cowan q this character and there
Of two prccepts considered null and adJugcd
bad but the other continued good and he was not dis
charged.
Now was the ma rshsl updcrhcse and ths other facts
,xcsabe for this delay The design In issuing the writ
to have before him officially the reason for as II
might be- ju-table by sickness Of the prisoner magis.
tratc narshalor by the wish II the prosecutor and
81 the accused to dayor the tendency OF other
prior legal proceedings II turned out 10 have been the
latter; and considering the uttered Of violence
considering the array and around and
unusual and wcghty rcason not To expose him abroad
In going from office To office. and from one Kind OF
animation to another to the imminent danger u escape
TIL the public completed and I'LL II could BE-
done with safety The more especially was this prudent
when thereby causing the prisoners detention but
prior preccpt doing that
hut Il j. strenuousy urged that this being criminal
warrant should Mt all risks have been examined before
the other which u supposed to be only civil proceed
ing without enquring now whether that be merely
civil in characteristics Is not the 81 the Marshal
having both preccpts ut once and then serving civil
first. such a course might not always be- proper
ut he had what Is called the civil prccept rst and
"a Il rt. and while serving u the offence committed
Ly the prisoner for which the criminal warrant issued
II delivered to him while the examination on trial
of the others going on and the question lett y
whether that enquiry to b. abandoned suspended
and the prisoner taken before another Commissioners and
tried this though the District Attorney did not de-
c Il who has charge Of a. for auht which appears
the officer Buman, or the Commissioner, or even sunm
himself
The quoted If rights OF property In slave States
yielding the punishment for crimes generally but
decisions that the master must lose his private slave