New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-09-02
The Buffalo slave Case.-Writ of Habea,
Corpus Granted.


The Buffalo Slave Case.-Writ of Habeas
Corpus Granted.
L S DISTRICT COJRT-Before Judge CoNKIiNG, 1t
Auburn.
IA yarfe, Jotn Dats, psfItl0ner, for prt NJ IA
hens tryDS.--On the l7th INST an application "as
made to Judge COnkiIng IN behalf OF the petitioner,
Tor awrl of Habeas C0rppS al SUbjtcend7n, 20 De d
recled TO Ar George b. Gates, one OF the Deputy
Marshas OF this district, III whose custody the pet
tiouerWas alleged 10 be, at the CITY OF Buhdio Inc
peft0n alleged that the petitioner was re>rainrl or
his liberty IN the custody Of the aforementioned
officer. under pTetense that he was fugitive from
labor, and IN virtue Of a warrant. a copy OF winch
annexed to the petition wherefore ne pray eG L
WI; OF bnbeGe corpS 10 dlschar." ann from cn>l0ly
on the ground that, ne was advised by ms COUNSEL
and believed, hs Imprisonment was Illegal thai he
was free man. and that The Commissioners Dy WhoH
the warrant was issued, had no jurisdiction 10 issue
tie same Annexed 20 the petition was The copy of
4 warrant ISSUED by II. X Smith, Esq. a Commi>-
SoneT of the Circuit Court OF the United states pur-
uorilrg TO have been granted on the Application OF
Reniamiu :. Rust, the duly authorized agent ana al
iorey of George J. Moore, OF Louisville, IN the
State OF Kentucky, alleging thsi the petitioner OWED
labor and service the Sald Moore. and that ne was
a fugitive thcrcfrOm. BY an Endorsement on the
warrant. II appeared that the same had been exc
cutod and returned. and that the Deputy Marshal
had the petitioner IN custody IN virtue thereof.
The petition contained no allegation OF inegu-
laritv IN the proceedings before the commissioner,
nor was il alleged the petition or by the counsel
Tor the petitioner, that there any lnsufhcency
III the warrant apparent upon ITS lace
This application was denied by the Judge, on the
ground of want Of probable cause, II beng, rs he
stated. "A settled rule both III England ana, IN the
absence OF any statute injunction 70 the contrary III
tins country also, that the wrt OF hqbeaS corpus as
not grantable of mere course, nor without pr00doe
cause shown. II was an extraordinary remeaN LOT
unlawful restraint OF personal liberty, aud no Court
or Judge had authority 10 allow II, except IN cases
apparently of tins nature IL was not enough Tor the
pct4oner 10 allcge IN general terms thai his conine
mcut was Illegal he was required 10 sho" that II
probably WAS so m fact In the case before hun,
connecting the validity Of the statute under which
The Commissioner had acted, not only had the pet-
toner failed ft.lhu tins requirement, but on the
contrary 1t expressly appeared thall the Commissioner,
m causing ms arrest ana detention, hdl onIN ais
char ed an imperative duty eulOlned upon him by
law and with regard to the Act, the Judge said he
did not consider himself al liberty 10 treat Ms consul
tutlOnalliy as any longer an open question. Nearly
wear had elapsed since II received the Sdncton %
the two Houses OF Congress- and. IN accordance
with the official opinion OF the Morncy-Genera OF
the United States. the approval Of the President.
No oct OF the National Government had ever more
strongly arrested the attention of the American peo-
pie or been more closely scrutnlzed. II had been
repeatedly brought under discussion and conslde
ration before the Judges and judicial tribunals
of the country, both State and National. and IN every
instance is conStutonalty had been unequlvocally
asserted and maintained. Among those by whom this
opinion had either directly OF indirectly been de-
Clared a, least three of the Judges OF the Su-
ovet cizenS OF states IN winch slavery does not
exist. lnter these circumstances, Judge COnkimg
SAID II was in hls judgment wholly unnecessary, aud
would be scarcely dccorOuS for HIM 10 enter upon the
examination ot the question at all. At al earlier
pcrOd II would have been ms duty 10 go ana 10
Be governed by his own independent conclusions
and Tins duty, he should not for moment. have heS
lated 10 perform.
The motion fer "A ha'eaS corpus having for these
reasons been denied second petition was present
ed. on the 10Th Instant on which the motion vas
renewed The petitioner states that he i SUI re-
strained of his liberty, IN The custody OF Mr. UaleS,
the Deputy Marshal that after his arrest an virtue
of the warrant mentioned IN his hrSt petition, hay
inc been brought tefoTe the sald commissioner, he,
the SAID Commissioner, made out certificate, d.
recnng the petitioner 10 be taken to the state of
kentucky. whence, as II was alleged, he had e>-
capped, ard where he StIll owed service. The pc
uiioneT further alleges that he : advised by coun-
sci. aud verify believes, the proceedings be
fore the Commissioner are nul! aud VOID, Tor
want OF jurisdiction in the sad Commissioner 10
make The SAID certificate, because there was no
evidence Ocire HIM, that he, the petitioner, was
slave, bGi HAT, Oh the contrary, the proof. a. the
petitioner Was further advertised, established ms
freedom that the said proceedings were founded
upOn al alleged record ot the County Court OF
Jefferson County, IN the state OF kentucky, Whlch
record : not exemphhed under the seal of the
said Court, IN pursuance OF the act OF congress IN
such case made and provided wherefore, a. the petl
uoLer further advised, the sad pretended record
IS void. and the Commissioner acquired no lunSdlc-
uon under the same that there was no other proof
before the Commissioner, ASIDE from such pretended
record that The petitioner owed service 10 the claim
AT. Moore but, on the contrary, there was proof
that the claimant brought ana permitted the petit
toner q come 10 Cincinnati, IN the state OF ONO.
whereby. a. he Is further advised ana believes, ne
acquired ms freedom And the petitioner further
states that 10 tn best OF ms knowledge and belief
there was moi before the Commissioner any evidence.
except he same pretended record OF the fact of his
escape FROM Kentucky and. lastly, that to the best
OF his knowledge and belief, he j. not detained Tor
any olher cause
verified by ;hc oath OF Mr.. Love, acting As the coun
SCI OF the petitioner
ON this petition Judge Conkhng granted order
MS; rcIurnablc the 26,h day Of August INST. On
that and the following day, the case vas ably argued
by Mr. Talcott for the petitioner, and Mr. Fo>ter Tor
The claimant
In opposition 20 the rule, the counsel for the claim
ant rea1 an AFFIDAVIT made Sy Mr. Gates. the deputy
Marshal, setting fOTihthc proceedings before the Com
mlSSloi er and incorporating the certificate granted
by him Appended 10 the certificate forming
pant thereof, was The petition OF the claimants agent
ana attorney, and the power OF attorney under which
he acted the warrant OF arrest the transcript OF
record 81 the County Court OF Jefferson County, II
.he state of kentucky authenticated by the attesta-
uOn Of The CleIs and impression Of the seal OF The
Cour. thereon stating had been proved To the salts
faction OF that Court by the adayitS OF two persons
therein named, that the petitioner owed service -
the claimant. and that he had, OF about The a5ih
Gav Of August 1882 escaped thsrefrom into The State
of OHIO which record was referred TO, IN the cert
cate = he evidence By which the facts therein
stated were established before the Commissioner
and the affidavit oi the agent % his apprehension Of
arescnc ~ The close OF the argument. on W ednesday.
The .-ih ., August, Judge COak!lng sad he did not
believe he should De able II decide me case before
tue morning ~ the second day thereafter but ina,
he should endeayot 20 do Il l. that tune, Which he