The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-04-10
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE CASE N BOSTON.
DECISION ON FRIDAY MORNING.
Committee Appointed by the Senate TO Ascertain
if any Citizens Freedom is in Danger.
EXCITEMENT AMONG THE ABOLITIONIsTs.
-se~o-N0NNc~N~o~N-o~NNe--
RECOMMENDATION TO- MEET WITH ARMS.
ABOLITION PROCLAMATION,
&c, SC, &c.

TIE pENIALo THE WRIT OF uaBEts CORPUS.
From the Boston Traveller. April 81
The ST preme Court crowded yesterday afternoon
to hear the decision in the of the petition Of Thomas
Smms the alleged fugitive slave for writ OF oeas corpus
The following is report of their decision
The Chief Justice again reiterated the objection to
granting the writ viz THAT by the provisions of the
haeas corpus act the court was warranted in refusing
the writ where appeared from the petition that he
would not be entitled to his discharge If the writ issued
and the practice of the court had been in accordance
wi that rule The allowance OF the writ in where
1t must be unavaing TO the party would be super
nuous act in the first place and be necessarily followed
by expense when no benefit could be derived from IT,
After touching upon the decacy of taking o,y.
of the jurisdiction Of another tribunal and stating the
pccuiar relations Of the State and general
TO each other and the history and organization Of the
general government whose legislation within the limits
OF its constitutional power was the supreme law of the
land he referred to the power of Congress make laws
for carrying into effect the powers Of the constitution
Those who familiar with the history Of the country
and the independent rights Of the States under the
federation ud easily understand why the provision in
relation to fugitive slaves inserted in the constitu
ton By those who framed it the provision deemed
absolutely necessary But the question Of such necessity
not TO be discussed now. IL was enough that 1t
exists The court agreed with the counsel that the pro-
visions in relation to fugitive slaves to b. construed
strictly 1t Lad been the practice Of courts consrue
il strictly, and distinguish strictly between fugitive
slaves and slaves who might into free States other
wise than a. fugycs
The Court had held that fusitivcs but those
who escaped by their act II owner brought his
slave into free State. then he not fugitive nd
would be discharged habeas corpus Or il an officer
Of the navy allowed to take board OF United
States ship his slave servant, at port in slave
State. and the government should order the ship 10 "A
Northern port the slave would not be here as fugitive
lie here by hi, act. but by the act Of his
owner in the ir place and 10y that Of the government
in abe second. Hence he woad not be fugitive, and
would be entitled to his discharge habas corpus.
This what 10 BE- understood by strict construe
on of The fugitive slave provision His Honor pro
cecdcd to consider the fugitive law of 1850 The Court
did not find that il differed from the act of l7ai in any
If ts provisions constitutonaly considered That
gave TO State grates the power to grant certificates
for returning such slaves and in great variety of cases
extending period of nearly fifty that law had
heen held to be- constit utional least had
been held be unconstitutional The powers conferred
magistrates Of the several States by that act had
been transferred TO the commissioners Of the United
States by the act of fo3 The powers given in the
acts the but the officers authorized TO
else them changed The cause of this change
to be found in the legislation OF some Of the States,
arising probably Of the decision in the Prgg
While the there held the law to be constitutional
ii hc;d tla, il optional with State mlgis
trate to take complaint under it, to refuse to act
he not holding his commission ffrnn the United States;
and. also, that the Legislature of state might prohibit
its magistrates from acting under the law Under this
decision. of the States did pass laws forbitding
their magistrates to take cognizance OF complaints
under the fugitive act Of 1888 IL therefore became
necessary in orr to carry out the provision IN relation
fugitive slaves for Congress to transfer the powers
given IN the act Of l1g 10 officers commissioned under
its laws The United states Commissioners are Ger
tanly judges within the meaning of the provision in
the of The unted states quoted by the
Neither the magistrates under the act of liaS
such judges yet the act giving them their powers in
laon to fugycs had never been held TO be uaconstu
tonal. 1t related to MISTER in which the national
legislature within the limits of the United States
constitution. supreme.
Again ndyerting the constitutional relations existing
between the general and state governments. he said tat
judges had almost without exception always approached
questions ut conflict Of jurisdiction with great decsry,
and he referred the onstcad where the State
and national authorities made preparations for hostile
action.
In relation to the judicial power II not in nj,
easy decide whether given power juicii
administrative. In general the two kinds of power
sufficiently distinct but II not in relation TO
subjects which power was given; and u might
he difficult determine whether power judicial
power discretion vested in the officer authorized
to exercsc the power hmd there another conside
ration Of impoItancc. The government of the
United states was divided into three branches-thc
cutive legislative and judicial To extent each
branch must be the judge uf is powers and unless
the contrary clearly aud maniiesy appeared to
be presumed that their acts within their conttu
tona powcrs Aud Congress may to some extent decide
what administrative nid what arr Judicial powers IN
gsatirT for the purpose Of carrying out the provisions
Of the constitution
The Court did special necessity for present
ing petition them the subject appeared To
NOR particularly within the jurisdiction Of the United
states courts whch were in the practice Of
dcring and acting upon the laws passed hy Congress
The tendency of such applications To state courts was 10
bring the state judiciary into conflict with ihe national
purpose of maintaining taat harmony which is 50 ui-
poriun Ia oursystcm of government II had been cus
omary the state court. 10 issue wrs og haeas corpus
of enlistment In the United statss eryicc Eut
IN such the party not held ineusody under
legal process. Tut 0nlS by some officer, Of the army Or
navy who had color Of power by La 10 decide IN size
premises. BG here the commissioner aad the rglA 70
decide undcr cxpfc~ law. and the ptonwas
that the law constitutional
Touching ruon the objection tha, the law waS
constutiond because II does not provide for sal by
jury he rcmard d. that In this respect was the same -
the act u Ia and the Court felt q ~ the long course 81
Judicial de ,isions that Law were hudng upon them
Those decisions embraced the prin plcs upon weh this
case must tascttci III the question were indeed new
one the art sht pause and AXE more tins tT con
siacraon 1t true the act recent aod some ~
the procc, ngs prescribed were aoycl; yct tc detcrmi-
nation Of I've questions which lrose under depended
upon IN, decisions IT neariy nfty years and long
course o pract se familiar TO the minds of tae Court 1s
Honor csneiplei with the r. t1ars .' W. bound
ay as sar usaninous opiuisn. and WITH fu sense uf
the wee n opinion that the writ Il habea tgms
cannot 81 granted in this case