New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-09-02

ne several DAYS ago for Wit of habe. IS c9-vs u
SUI ,c.eig, to bnus before NE ;ae body Of John Da-
vs. Tor the purpose OF lnqunng INTO the Legality OF
hls confinement IN the custody Of Of the Deputy
Narshas of this District and the case having beer
fully argued by counsel and considered by me, an
I now to declare my opinion OF The law thereupon.
The case l. one IN rs nature calculated. We
| know by recent experience. to arouse the passions
and preudIces Of men IN this part Of the Union
I and this tendency. IN the present instance, has
/ been unhappiy infamei by an extraordinary incl
den; reported 10 have attended the orglnaI ares,
OF the petitioner But the circumstances 70 Which
/ have alluded, however Cep-Orable, Il l. scarcely
/ necessary TO observe, can have no legitimate ll1u
| e1ce whatever upon the decision Of the question
before me, and are 10 be remembered. II - ALL
! only for the purpose of inspiring a deeper sense
/ Of judicial duty, and greater caution IN It's cis-
| charge II the prisoner Is entitled by Ia" 10 the
| privilege Of the wit OF hgbeGS corpus. 1t must
/ be awarded # not II must be withheld. ami n
neither event can the result AFFORD any Just ground
for dissatisfaction. stu eSs any apology for ne IN
! diligence Of a spirit OF InSuborimafon 10 the Laws
Of The land 1t Is proper at the outset to observe
! that, a. hoped and expected, when ne oT1er ms
| vas made. the merits OF the case are IS fully
be.OTe ne they could be the return Of VIII OF
hateaS co-yuS. should one be granted The real qIes
ou 10 be decided. therefore l.. whether the petition
cr cItItCG 20 his Llsch aTge for u = obvious IS
well IN established rule, that when, upon Al ap-
plcatOn for hQbe7S corpus. appears tha' IL would
be fruliless to the petitioner II allowed, II not TO
! te granted
Before proceediBgto an examination Of the merits
of this application n may not De amlSS 10 advert 20
! the source OF the power W men am cAe1 upon 10
| exercise. The Government OF the Uni'ed States IS
one OF expressly delegated powers, AM is junction
aTlcs exercise 10 authority except such as either
IN terms by reasonable amendment. has been con-
erred bv the Constitution, or by LAYS passed IN ac
| corcanCe herewith. To guard against possible re-
stnctIOLs of the great privilege OF habeds corpus
| was deemed eXpedent, by an express provision OF
the Constitution. to forbid It's suspension unless
| when IN case Of rebellion or INVASION, the pubic
safety might require I. With this exception II was
lett as one at the elements incidents Of the judi
| Ff arrtla ted nv I
| give i vitality II necessary Tor Congress 10
confer the power 10 grant It, and 10 designate the
fncuonanes by whom THIS power should be eXer-
cised. THIS was done by the lih section Oh tle Ju
dclal Act Of l1s9, which. as II has been autnoIlld
jiveiy Interpreted invests all the Courts OF the / M
ted STATES and the several Judges thereof with the
power "a issue tins wrt FOR the purpose OF nquiT
! Ing INTO the cause Of commitment" The act does
not prescribe the eases IN which ths form OF remedy
NAV be reSCrted 10. nor does cehne the power oil
the Court or Judge IN cases where Il lies recourse
for these purposes must therefore be bad 10 the t0n
mon Law and especially 30 the celebrated Hobfqs
torrts act Of 81 Charles H., designed to correct and
eftctyaliy to guard against the scandaou> eVaSIonS
and abuse, by winch the practical ehcacy %! ne
VIII OF Hoie1s orJ7S had become IN a great Iegree
desroyec during me arbitrary reign Of me >te vars.
! Black Comm I30-l@S ~ pQrfe BOi.mau SWart-
won't. I Cranch', r >. - CondonS K. 33} Pgr'e
! Watkins PETERS, Il. 1913, pol. 202
Ills Honor examined al length the authorizes
Cltec at The argument, and especially the cases III
! g0yfe keamey.7 Wheat r. Is and Er Parfe vat
! bins Peiers's K. 1913 the latter beng manly re-
| ned or by tie counsel for the claimant ard whicA
establish the principle that when. by Court OF COM
! le.ont jurisdiction a judgment I'D rs nature hha|
has once been pronounced, II cannot De reviewer on
Habcas corpus ana lie ihcn proceeded as follows
rls upon THIS principle that the claimant relies,
and tie question is, whether or not Il furnishes me
| iult OF decision foI the present case.
/ For the purpsse Of determining tins question, u
proper 10 examine into the nature OF the adudica-
| ton which It IS proposed to bring under Ieyie".
/ The adjudication was made by one of the CommiS-
soi els of United states for THIS Judicial District
Tie oi5cc OF commissioner was created by an act OF
! Congress passed III lcI- by wmchlhe several Circuit
! Courts were authorized 10 appoint suitable persons
to take acnOW gIncntS OF BAL and aiflddvltS II
/ c,yli causes pending ~ such Courts and b. dH act
/ passed lew years later. the persons so appointed
/ Mere authorized To perform the IKE services IN
/ the District Courts. By the latter acl and other acts
Subsequently passed, other powers were success
sVey conferred upon these officers, and lastly,
~ the first section OF the act of september II,
1850, known n the fugitive slave act, they are au-
thorl2cd and required 10 exercise AMI discharge
all the powers and duties conferred by thls act
The fourth section further declares that the Com
mlssoners " shall have concurrent jurisdiction VITA
the JUDGES OF the Circuit and District Courts of the
/ Iued States. IN their respective circuits ana as
trCts" BY the SIKH section II Is also enacted hdt
/ the certificates 10 De granted under the act "Shh
be conclusive of the right II the person IN whose
favor granted 10 remove such iugl'Ne 10 the ot'le
or Territory from which he escaped, and Shali pre-
/ vent all moesia,lcn OF such person or persons by
any process issued by any Court, Judge 5i'Iratc,
or other person whatsoever
+ have existed, independently OF this enactment, con
cernln legal and effect OF these ccrthcates.
I may. think, be safely assumed that It was n
tended ON Congress 70 place them, IN TINS respect,
f substantially the footing of judgments rendered
uy judicial tribunals, IN cases "hh.n their IurSdc-
uon. But, notwithstanding the WIDE scope OF the
F cOcirne laid down by the supreme tour, IN the
Watkins case, I am also OF opinion, aud indeed ihiS
was distinctly admitted BY The learned and able
counsel who appeared ior the compliant, 'hai ms
r conclusive effect can be ascribei to certificate
Ia hon IN K zoe Al
or. at least, according TO some reasonable utCrprc-
iaon of IT. language, might have been granted III
conformity with the act. and IN pursuance OF the au-
thory thereby conferred. JnquestlonablE II should
appear 10 have been granted By person having
power 10 grant Il, and proceeding m manner
warranted 10y the act 1t Is only TO such certificates
that tie principle OF law relied on by the counsel or
the claimant can be applied. and such only can Con
. srCSs De presumed 70 have nd IN view. regret
tiat the circumstances OF the case. and my own IN
olspen>at.e engagements. requiring my immediate
departure 10 remote part OF the distsct. preclude
me from iOriliylnc and elucldarng this PROOFS uon
and rccolcilns Il with the case Lr y1r'' Nathln>,
by reference 10 authorities. But snail assume II
- unQUo>tOnahle. The counsel for the petitioner,
dtnt> that the certificate now IN question is OF TINS
character
OAe OF the obecuors to lis sufhciency IS that the
person by whom 1t Was granted IS therein described
/ "a a Commas lOECr appointed Oy the Second Or
cult Court" and " Commissioner appointed by
, The Circuit Court for the Second Circuit when IN
truth there Is such Court and of course, no such
J Commissioner. The objection i true IN point oi
TACT ana If there not another, OF a more serious
nature this would. Al least. require consideration.
But II IS further objected that the case OF the pc
ttioner not embraced by the act or rather by that
} part Of II under which the proceeding was enter
famed, and bv which alone II could have been au-
ihorlZed Ii Is due 10 the highly respectable gen
! iieman. by whom tie certificate was granted 10
observe, that this objection appears not 10 have
! been mace before him, and probably II was not
! thought of by HIM. or, until Afterwards, by the
! counsel for the petitioner. The clalman, saw III
10 avail himself of the provisions OF the 10Th section
OF the act, by which the owner of fugitive slave Is
permitted to MAKE proof OF the main facts OF tltie
and escape before a Count of Record or some Judge
thereof III the state whence the escape was made
and having obtained transcript of The record, which
/ such Court : required 10 make, Of the matters 80
proved, 10 exhibit the same 10 the Judge or CommlS-
! sioner to whom application shall be made, N the