Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1851-01-16
The Brandon Union Whig and
the Habeas Corpus act of 1850.

constltutonalltv OF the act because II authorizes
the State courts 10 issue the writ OF habcas cor
pus to the inhabitants of Vermont who may be
arrested and claimed as fugitive slaves. The
Union Wing denies this right to the State iribu-
I nails. as being in conflict with the laws of the
United States; insisting that erc'usire lursd.c-
ton Of the matter belongs TO the United States
courts.
If this point could be made ont by my fair
reasoning. or by any adludged case OF the State
or National courts, the Union Wing might stand
justified. But unfortunately for that paper no adj
judged case con be found TO sustain THIS position;
and no act of Congress can be cited whlchtlkes
away the right Of the State Of y crmoni TO clothc
her judicial tribunals with this power.
The Union Wing says " Il viii be remcfn-
bored that proceedings for The recovery of iugi-
tivos from labor are within the crclusiuc 1ursdic-
ton Of the United States courts" Admitting
this TO be true 10 would devove upon the Union
Whig to make ont that Vermont bad passei
law 10 aid the Southern slave owners TO recover
their 6girc sarcs to bring the act within the
case stated This the Union Wing viii be una-
hle TO prove. ltasserts no jurisdiction over iu-
gitve slaves.
The act provides additional facilities for allow
ing the inh lbiqnts of Vermont the habc1s cor
pus, anu ia otectng thcm boo their personal lib-
eriy. when they shall be imprisoned, arrested or
claimed as fugitive slaves. II does not refer 10
any person bot our own inhabitants And when
arrested and charged with being sWes, it pro-
poses to allow them the habeas corpus
Does the Union Wing deny that the free pco-
pie of Vermont are entitled 70 the habels cor
pus from her own courts If 1t does, wi 1t
please state the act OF Congress, proyisionot the
Constitution or decision Of the court which of-
firms that doctrine
The act Of Vermont allows an appeal to the
inhab8ani of Vermont who is claimed as q iugl
tive from labor says the " Ing, and tins is an
other objection 90 the act. But does that right
of appeal given by the act divest the court Of
the power o. issue the WRIT
.4pB-oi on hibeas corpus is not new Il Is al
lowed by an uct Of Congress from any justice or
Judge to the circuit court OF the district, and from
that court Co The supreme court of the United
States, in case. arising by virtue oiany act done
or omitted under any @ledgcd right, &c. the va
dty or effect whereof depend upon the law Of
nations, or under color thcreof--Sce roll ,, LARS
Of 4. ~. pqge SO.
Is there any mpropricy IN allowing the qucs
tons of law arising IN such case TO be carried Co
the supreme court of the State and from thence
to the supreme court Of the United States
Ii allows trial by jury on all questions ofiact,
and this Is nlmed as another objection The
Union WING insists that there is mo- question of
fact which can be- legally in issue competent for
the State court Go try. i not the question wheth-
er the person claimed owes service or labor, ~
be determined M favor OF the claimant before the
jurisdiction oi The state tribunal IS superseded
by the courts OF the United States. JUDGE M'-
Lean go held n the case Of Norris rs. .Nor'on
md others u Indiana, IN 1850 The officers of
the United States csn obtain no jurisdiction over
the inlpbtau- of the state of Vermont claimed
as urtyes from labor until the claimant estib-
fishes the tact that the persons claimed owe ihe
service or labor-->ee the hdiaaa c1so.
claimant by pursuing the course pointed
ont M the ACT OF Congress, may establish hi- IL
lie So far as To allow his seiznre of the person
claimed. IL o. prn7 f1clc case, subject io Dee
inquired INTO by the State Tribunals and Sttc
Judges on hlhaas corpus The claimant makes
ont h', clom To John Doe by evidence weCn er-
P~ie but the IDENTITY ct the person wli the
person nnmed 10 his papers is to be Wocei ana
inc ute also on me hapeas corpus.
Inc act OF Vermont does noi assume To direct
her courts ana Judges as to the rules OF proof
nor prescribe any different mode than Is prescrih-
ed by Congress or the Constitution. lhey are
lelt t. try the case on The rules OF law, applca-
bic to the case and the writ The Union Wing
must assume thai our courts ana Judges moy dls-
regard the laws OF ongross and the rules OF the
common tsAS. without such assumption NJ
argument ms no force.
suppose lhe person Is arrested without process
IRON any oDcer ui ihe uhtcd Sllies, as lll' sl-
prene court in Frigg rs. Fe"isyrdHa dc.ain.n-
ed might be done, under the constitution of thc
United States. on mere claim by oill of sale
or without any proof tthe identity otthe person,
or OF ms escnpe from another Smte, OF OF hls
owing service cannot the state Tribunals issue
the writ of htbeas corpus 10 inquire INTO t1e le-
gary Of the claim or arrest; Aud VIII tle law
Of Vermont applicable 10 such case he coaen-
ded TO be Invalid Z No provision OF the Consl-
tuition or act of Congress, or decision of o court
can be found against H. But there are many
coses where The jurisdiction OF the State Judge
has been INSERTED AMI exercised
But all thai is necessary TO show the 1unl-
ness of The argument of the Union Wing is, TO
establish the point that the state Judges and state
courts may issue the writ OF mhcas corpus To
their lnhabit7nis who may be claimed ana arres-
ted ON Charge Of being iugltves from slavery.
This Is sufficiently established 10y the case OF
John Norris rs. Leca9cr .Nelcion aNd otiffs, trcd
IN the State of lndmnl, May Term, loo. In
that case judge MLean says;-
lst " state Judge may issue a writ of ia-
beas corpus, and inquire into the cause of deten-
ton OF a person claimed as fugitive slave
I'd. Every person within the jurisdiction of
a State owes To It an allegiance. lie Is answer
able to the laws of the state, and the State is
bound to protect hun IN his legal rights
3D. W hen II appears by the return of the