The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-02-24

the act; or aiding, abetting. or assisting suct
person, directly or indirectly, in escaping from
person or persons legally authorized Aforesaid
That s, any person legally authorized by this act
to hold or restrain such persons in custody.
i ii ia made the duty Of the commissioners having
concurrent jurisdiction therein with the judges Of
the circuit and district courts of the United States
issue process under this act and Of the marshal.
and their deputies to issue all such warrants aud
precepts when to them directed.
The proof III the present case Is, that warrant
was duly Issued upon the proper preliminary evil
dence for the arrest OF Shadrack, colorcd person,
alleged to have been fugitive from service or labor,
and who had escaped from service or labor in the
State of Virginia. according to the laws Of that
State and was claimed by the agent or attorney Of
the person to whom such labor or service due.
And the marshal makes his return that, in obedi
ence 10 the warrant he had arrested the within
named Shadrack, and then had him, to wit, on the
day OF an alleged rescue, before the commissioner
| for examination.
i It has been objected by the defence that the war
rant and return of the officer not conclusive,
except in the case for which the return was made.
But they clearly conclusive of the fact of
in that case, and thus prove that at the time the
alleged rescue, party claimed and held in legal
custody by the proper officer, under lawful war
rant, so held under arrest pursuant to the act
of September 18, 1850.
| While 30 arrested as an alleged fugitive, and
after he was committed by the commissioner to
close custody in the hands of tho marshal for the
very proper purpose Of giving time to prepare his
defence against the claim upon his person, and
while; for the want Of any other place of custody
provided by the United States, he restrained
and kept in the United States courtroom, a mob
burst into the room, and, against the resistance Of
| the officers, rescued the prisoner.
The objection taken and much insisted on, by the
learned counsel for the defendant is that the pros
ecution must prove afirmatvcly that the prisoner
80 rescued, while under arrest, WAS the identical
Shadrack claimed, that he was held to service and
labor by the laws of Virginia. This would involve
the trial OF the question of claim in the absence of
the person claimed; 30 that in the hearing of \
charge OF the offence Of rescue, the trial of the
claim, which was interrupted by the escape, must
first be disposed of before party could be prose-
cuted for aiding to such escape. The hearing Of
the claim is, to some extent, judicial, and deter
| mines the matter, but the present hearing ia only
preliminary to discharge or holding the party to
answer. Hence, the ground taken be CORRECTION
struction Of the law, it would seem to follow that in
every case Of an arrcst a rescue may be made with
mpunity because the trial of the claim to the SER
vice could not be determined after the escape.
| II the objection does not go to this extent, but
means only that there must be prima face evidence
that the person rescued was fugitive from service
| or labor, and claimed such, that evidence,
for all the purposes of this hearing il found in the
warrant and return; the identity of the party
claimed is connected with the arrcst, and return
by the testimony of the deputy marshal that the
person rescued was the person arrested under the
warrant.
The sixth section of the act refers to the person
who is claimed, before adjudication, "such alleged
fugitive" and this is his relation, until the hearing
upon the claim shall be concluded. The next fol-
tOWlnr section maKe6 IL an OucnCe 10 rescue "Such
fugitive "while arrested" in pursuance to
the authority given by the act. In this view the
evidence from the warrant, the records fthe court
in Virginia in pursuance of the act and the testi
mony OF MIR. Commissioners Curtis and Of the
deputy marshal, are satisfactory to my mind in
making out prima facie case on this point.
The defendant, if able, might have rebutted it
by proof that the wrong person was arrested, or
that he not fugitive under the statute; but no
such evidence has been offered; and the escape of
the alleged fugitive by the aid of those who would
/ probably have defended him on that ground, as
, they had lawful right to do, had such defence
been available, is to be received, at least in pr e.
liminary inquest, as tending to prove that such
grouno mould DC .sken. Inc objection, y OF any
the construction of the law is to be udiciay settled
by competent tribunal; but in this preliminary
hearing it is not my duty to set aside the law upon
nice, critical or technical objections.
hold, therefore, that the body of the crime (that
is, the offence contemplated by the 7th scction) is
, sufficiently proved.
The only remaining inquiry is, whether the Of
fence is sufficiently made out against the defend
ant; and on this question have power to decide
the issue of guilty or not guilty. The simple issue
here is, Gas in all preliminary matters in hearing
before an examining magistrate, not having fun
jurisdiction the oence,) whether there is suf-
tcient evidence to send the party to the proper tr
bunal for an inquest before the grand jury. My
decision, therefore, can have no effect upon the
guilt or innocence of the defendant and can only
determine whether be shall shall not be held for
trial before court Of the United States having cog
nizance of the alleged offence.
In coming TO a decision, am bound to take the
manifest weight of the evidence if il make out such
a case in the best discretion of the ma gstrate
would require and authorize grand jury to find a
true bill Of indictment, and am obliged to come
to that conclusion, without any doubt or hesitancy
in my own judgment.
The reasons for this conclusion il is unnec cssary
to state with minuteness
The defendant was present at the time awlesa
act Of violence was committed. Whether the evil
,ra 10
is not material. II is said that he present
reporter and the nature and mpor tance Of the duty
of a true reporter have been we'll stated by the
learned counsel for the defence. But the time and
the place, and the refusal TO depart, not
within the province Of reporter; and if that privi
lege used to defy the law and it's officers, and
i to encourage the escape of prisoner, il would be
rather an aggravation than a justification Of the
offence. The evidence on this point, and the de-
fcndans address to the prisoner regarded in its
bearing on the defendant only as tending to show
disregard of, and prcdisposition to- violate the
law OF the land in this particular; a law which, so
long as it remains law the statute book and 10
not pronounced void by the constitutional tribunal.
is binding like all laws upon good citizens, and
must be enforced against every who ia not con-
tent to be good citizen at least far to leave
undone the only thing this law requires of him,
and that not TO resist with violence connivancc
the process the officers of the law He is not re-
qurcd to do any act to aid in the execution of this
law, provided there is no resistance to lawful pro-
cess and to the officers of the law. But if he
sumcs to interpret this any other law for himself
and carries out that self elfinterpretaton by breach
of law, or aiding that breach in others the consti
tuted tribunals conservators Of the peace, must
be called upon to interpret his Interpretation, and
| apply the punishment provided for the offence.
The defendant is not held to answer for his opin-
ions, as has been suggested for the defence. Every
| citizen may hold and express his opinion for
against any particular law, and take all lawful
means to change such law, or to defend all who
held to answer under it. But if he carries his opin-
ions into overt act against law, he must answer
for that act, the law holds all to who vo-
| late its sanctions
In a government of the people, where all law is
made unmade by the majority, the citizen who
knowingly and wfully violates law, commits a
crime against himself as we'll society. And
while he claims the general protection Of all law
for the security of his property and person, he
have no right, under that protection which GO
vernment Of laws gives him, to violate particular
law which he may dsapprove, and thereby set the
example for rendering society unsafe, by bringing