The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-04-11


subscribers" win $40 enclosed, viii copy o The
same edition as 'hey furnish subscribers for, gratis
From III. Poet, Apns.
Wrt Of Labeas Corp, IN The Of simms agas refused
oy NE Supreme Court.
Anolher attempt was made yesterday 10 withdraw
Simms from the Jurisdiction Of the Unie States conlms
sone Upon the opening oil the supreme judicial court
yesterday morning Justice Shaw and Judges Met
calf, Fletcher and Bigelow being on the bench-R H.
w o haseas apd Es chef 81
after brief consultation with the associate Judges made
the reply that was made on Friday 10 the first ap
peaon viz: that where i appeared by the petition IL
self that the party held under due process Of law.
the court would grant the writ prayed for. ,.55ag
Mr. Ransoul then, in behalf Of Smms, said il was his
purpose TO argue the question whether the warrant by
winch Smms was held was good and sufficient under the
constitution and laws OF the land. AS reason for
prompt acton on The application, he said that the com
missioner might decide the against Snns, and that
ne might be forthwith carried back Georgia as slave,
before the counsel could be prepared argue the main
points. t
The court thought there was no reason 10 apprehend
that Sinms would be Withdrawn from the jurisdiction OF
The court in the manner intmated. ~fI
mol be in custody n ne court Mouse many hours longer
The court then Informed The counsel that they were OF
opinion that the petitioner not under the circumstan
ces entitled to the writ as matter Of right, but they
were willing TO hear an argument on that point.
After the reading OF the petition and the warrant, and
some incidental explanation, MIR Rantou proceeded with
his argument the chief point in which that the act
of 1850 was Unconstitutional in giving final Judicial pow
efs TO United States court commissioners, who are not
Judges within The meaning OF the constitution, viz:
the judicial power the United States shall be vested
~ one supreme court aud in such inferior courts the
Congress from time to time, order and establish The
ber Offices during good behavior, and shall slated times
ecese e for Their services eompensalon which sia no,
States Gonstitnuon Art 3, Sec. L. 93.2e Y st-
By this provision the judicial power OF the United
States, Mr. Ran,oul proceeded TO maintain, vas exclu
iyp p IN tel atpd
and undminishable salaries. The United States com
mssioners did not fall within this description for they
not appointed during good behavior but liable
to removal by the court which appointed lhem nor had
they any fixed salary, their compensation depended
upon the amount of business, and, under the fugitive
law, il depended the decision given Yer they
had jurisdiction with the United States circuit
and district courts in the premises and their powers
equal the Judges Of those courts and their action un
der the law could not be revised by those judges Their
decisions We're final the main point in issue before
them; not in a mere preliminary proceeding, 10 be
powered TO decide finally and absolutely Of the most
important facts which could be put in issue before u
dcla trbq1al--hamely whether party should be de-
prived of his liberty during his natural lie or not.
The certificate Of the commissioner that party was
the slave OF claimant would be final wherever he might
be carried, and the rights OF party would be concluded
by il, lie should seek 10 bring the question OF
his freedom to trial in slave State The hearing be.
fore commissioner was in all lis steps and parts Judicial
in its form and essence The commissioner heard and
determined upon evidence taken under oath, and his de-
cislon final judgment without appeal II was i'm.
possible to conceive OF more perfect exercise Of judi.
clai power than this. Not even the Supreme Court OF
the United States had greater power over the matters
within its jurisdiction Judicial power" therefore,
vested in the commissioners, while they were neither
appointed paid IN the manner provided IN the con-
suiuon and hence the law giving them such extraor-
dnay powers clearly Unconstitutional and all acts
performed by commissioner under the law were abso
luely null and vod; and the warrant of commissioner
Curtis IN the case at bar gave the United States mar
shal no authority whatever 20 detain Simms and he
ought 10 be forthwith discharged from that illegal cuso
dy Mr. Rantoul cited several authorities which ne main
tanned sustained his position
He concluded his argument, at half past twelve, and
the appointed three the afternoon for announcing
the decision. AT that hour the four judges came in,
and the chief justice proceeded 10 deliver the opinion Of
the court against the application lie again reiterated
the objection 10 granting the writ, viz that by the pro-
visions Of the habeas corpus ac the court was warranted
in refusing the writ where appeared from the petition
that he would not be entitled TO his discharge il The
wrt issued and the practice of the court had been IN
cordance with that rule The allowance OF the writ in
where it must be unavaling to the party would be
superuous in the first place. and be necessarily fol-
lowed BY expense when no benefit could be derived from
IT. E# f3M
After touching upon the delcacy Of taking case out
OF the jurisdiction of another ,ribunal and stating the
peculiar relations OF the State and general governments
each other and the history and organization Of the
general government whose Legislation within the limits
OF con suutona powers the supreme law OF the
land he referred to the power OF Congress to make laws
for carrying into effect the powers OF the constitution
Those who were familiar with the history OF the
try and the independent rights OF the States under the
confederation could easily understand why the provs-
relation To 1uguVe slaves was nsetteo IN INC COIL
siiution. By those who framed the PROVISION was
deemed absolutely necessary. But the question OF such
necessity not TO be discussed now. IL was enough
that exists The court agreed with the counsel that
the provision in relation TO fugitive slaves was TO be
construed strictly IL had been the pracce OF courts to
construe strictly and distinguish strictly between fug,-
tive slaves and slaves who might come INTO Tree Sates
other wise than iugiilvess.
The court had held that none were fugves but those
who escaped by their act II owner brought his
slave free State, then he was not fugtive and
would be discharged on habeds corpus. Or II an offcer
OF the navy allowed to take on board OF a United
States ship his slave as servant at port ~ slave
State and the government should order the ship to
northern port the slave would not be here as fugitive
He was here by his act but BY the act OF ms
in the FIRST place, and by that OF the IN
the second Hence he would not be a fugitive, ana
would be entitled TO his discharge on hdteus corpus
This was what be understood by tconruc'
lion of the fugitive slave provision. p
His honor now proceeded TO consider the fugitive law
of 1880 The court did not find that IT differed IRON the
act of 1893 in any Of its provisions, consttuiohay con-
sdeed Tba, gave 10 State magistrates the power to
grant certificates tor returning such slaves and In
great variety cases, extending over perod OF nearly
hfty years ha law had been held to be constuonAl or
al lea. had been held TO be unconstitutional The
powers conferred magistrates of the several States by
that had been transferred TO the commissioners OF the
United States courts by the act OF 1888 The powers
given in the acts the same but the ofhcers author
ized 10 exercised them were changed. 80,
The OF this change was 10 be found IN the legs
laon OF of the States arising prebably out OF the
the law TO be constitutional, it was also held that
. rnt.nr f,s, Ctota pun n