The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-04-15

him after he has received him II is suggested that there
are PRACTICAL difficulties and mpobabies. On The Other
hand may be suggested that there practical means
anu provisions we'll known 10 be made by the slave
States Tor tying these questions OF freedom by process
instituted fof the express purpose and the government
Of the United States for augh that can see has just
clear constitutional right to look 10 class oil Proba-
0hes as TO the other Its looking to the one and not 10
me o'ner does not make It's own proceedings clearly de.
signed TO be mnstera and to only the limited right oi
removal full and final trial of right which il obvious
" 'nendsto leave TO another government to adadcae,
upon Tue iah that II will do justice to Its own subject
Entertaining, therefore, very clear opinion that these
proceedings are ministerial, and that il is perfectly com.
peen to Congress TO authorize magistrate, appointed
by the authority of Congress- who is not judge to make
his judicial inquiry for this special and limited purpose,
come now 10 examine the authorities which have been
cited at the bar order ascertain how far that
potency is settled question The learned counsel for
the prisoner has sad-perhaps with entire correctness
that the question of the constitutional right OF Congress
never been directly raised, argued and decided any
court in this country. with the exception Of very recent
case N the supreme court OF this State He admits how
ever, that the case OF Prgg us the Commonwealth OF
Pennsylvania l6 Peters, does contain language that
authorizes this jurisdiction, although he denies that such
an effect ought 10 be given the But 10
me that am bound to give effect to the solemn decara
ton OF opinion found in that case; for find it declared
tha that court entertained no doubthat STATE magistrates
may, they choose exercise this authority. unless they
are prohibited by State legislation.
The case OF Wright ys Hal! (5 Ssrg and Rawle,
81 T. an authority directly IN point The supreme court
inc repegiando would not lie 10 interrupt certificate
granted BY State magistrate for the removal OF fug
i've slave The certificate was granted by Judge OF the
court OF common pleas, who undertook to act under the
| law OF 1893 In the of Jack u.s. Martin l2 Wen
dell 3 the recorder of the city Of New York had grant
Cd certificate, and the supreme court OF the Stale de-
cded that writ de homine could not prevent
his removal In the Of Commonwealth Griffith e
Pickering, ~ warrant had been used, and magis,
,rae had undertaken act but the alleged fugitive had
In like manner in the of Glen Hodges, g John
son. CD the slave had been seized without process, and
consequently this question was in way involved in
the decision. These all the authorities cited at the
bar, with the exception Of which am informed,
occurred IN the supreme court OF this Commonwealth on
Monday last in reference TO this proceeding. II is stated
by the counsel on both sides that application was
made TO that court for writ of habeds corpus to bring
body OF Thomas mms, upon the ground that his
arrest and restraint under my warrant is unlawful, for
the reason that had authority to issue il, under
stand that the same question was argued which has been
argued before me. and that the court unanimously sls
tanned my authority to issue the warrant and refused the
writ | have not seen any report OF the decision, but
presume that this question is now entitled TO be consd-
cred as settled by other authority than my own. !.
H. The second objection taken by the learned counsel
for the prisoner is that this proceeding is suit al com
mon law, in which either party has right TO demand
trial by jury and inasmuch the act of Congress has
against the 9th article Of the amendments the
stiutlon, which declares that in suits at common law.
where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dol
lars the right OF trial byjury shall be preserved"
have endeavored in the foregoing discussion TO show,
on the authority OF the Supreme Court oi the United
States on that of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, on
that OF Mr. Justice Story commentator on the consti
tuion and by some views OF my that this is sum
mary ministerial proceeding in aid OF right OF removal,
and tha, the liberty of the party is not in conesation
here for final adjudication II this be so-and can
ertan doubt that it sths proceeding is not suit al
common law, in which either party can as matter OF
right, demand trial by jury. II II proceeding in
which the rights of the parties to be tried for final ad
udicaton. then should agree that the prisoner could
matter OF right, demand trial by jury if II were true that
slaves entitled the benefits OF the constitution OF the
United States. But as hold i 10 be proceeding oi an
entirely different character. which, although il involves
an inquiry judicial in It's nature merely provided IN aid
OF anght OF removal which the claimant would have
without IL under the constitution, OF opinion that
III al by jury cannot be demanded and consequently that
this objection to The act is unenabe. The decision OF
the Supreme Cour, OF The United States in Prggs
that the law OF 1898, which also withheld trial by jury.
is constitutional all its leading provisions, it 10
me fully disposes OF this question.
III The next objection taken by the learned counsel
for the prisoner is that the transcript OF record, author
lied by the statute to be made IN the State where The
claimant resides is incompetent evidence Congress hav
ing no powerto confer State courts authority to take
such testimony.
The argument in supper, of this objection is, lha, the
exercise OF authority TO take testimony TO be used in
this proceeding to find fact involved in the decision
10 be made is the exercise OF judicial power which Con.
gtess consttutonay confer upon State
magistrate In order 10 make the answer to this obec
tonwhich satisfies me that II is wholly nnfounded-
ineligible, il is necessary recur to the provisions of
the statute The tenth section OF the statute contains the
following provisions:
That when any person held service labor in any
State Territory In the District Of Columbia, shall
hcrefnon, the party whom such service labor
shall be due, hts her, or their agent attorney apply
any of record therein, or Judge thereof ia vacation,
and make satisfactory proof TO such court Judge in
OF the escape Aforesaid and that the person
owed service labor to such pary whereupon the
shall record be made of the matters proved.
and also general description OF the person 50 escaping,
with such convenient certainty may be- and transcript
Of record by the of clerk
and Of the seal of the said court being produced in
other State Territory, district In which the person
escaping may be iouad and being exhibited any Judge,
commissioner or other officer authorized by me United
States escaping from service labor TO be
delivered up, shall be held and taken TO be ul aud concu
sve evidence Of the tact OF escape and that the service
labor of the person escaping Is due the party in such
record mentioned"
By virtue of this provision branch of the inquiry
directed by the statute be made before certificate
granted for removal is dir ,cted be made by court
Judge OF the State from which the fugitive has escaped
/ This part OF the inquiry is whether anybody owing
service has escaped. The other branch of the inquiry
namely, whether the prisoner arrested here ~ the per-
son VINO escapeds directed TO be made here by the
commissioner / shall have something TO say concern.
ing the obvious for hsprovson in another part
OF this opinion. At present it is only necessary TO say
that the objection answered by the which take
OF the nature and character Of this proceeding and by the
decision Of the Supreme Cour, of the United States the
ot Prgg orit II is true, as the court there declared
that State may, II they choose exercise the
whole OF this jurisdiction, find every fact involved in the
inquiry and grant certificate upon such finding, IL
surely competent to Congress to confer upon State
magistrate authority to exercise part Of this jurisdiction
and to make part of this inquiry That the finding OF
State magistrate upon that part of the inquiry which he
is authorized TO make is made conclusive upon The
missioner here, who is to find the other fact, and 10 do
something therein, ia in strict analogy to class OF
where officers who not part of the judiciary di
recled make certain inquiries, and to find certain facts
which to have cerian legal consea when pre-
al trthu