The republic., 1851-04-10
p-sasav. s..ve e ! .~~Isa

ther accounts * The prcceedfpgs and 1nctdfpH Qf
the slave case now pending II that city; y
From ~ Bosson Journal qf Jasmssv 4fysrxesn.
EXAMINATIONS or Taos. eINs ConTInppp Yul1
RspoRr or THE AaauMsrn Or TIM CovNe6t NJ
THE DsrEScs.--At II o'clock m ~ sQb1nGnl1-
sioner came in; but account e. Msf 1antool
being engaged in the supreme Judicial consts -
At one O'Clock this afternoon the Commsseionax
again came in, and the hearing proceeded.
Tho Commissioner inquired Of Mr.. Thomae
whether he had any further evidence - the ca1eS
tis inquired q Mr. sewall whether i VA arragged
who was to argue the case; TO which be fept3e4s
that either Mr.. Loring or Mr.. RaptouL Mr.. C..
further said that be deemed 4 hi. duty Y forward
the as fast ~ justice would allow. IL had been
assigned for II O'clock, and must now be COM
menced. }
Mr.. Rantoul proceeded and said be proposed 70
submit the several proportions which be read When
the court was last in session The rst propoG3kiCn
was that the power the Commiasioner Has cnilod 70
exercise in this was judicial one. and elnch -
could only be exercised by = judge. That the Com-
tho language Of the constitution, which he read He
| supposed il could not be pretended that Unitod
States Commissioner was such = perDon - hare
described a. United States judge, Hs ~: not e
he receive regular stipulated compensation, and
therefore he could not BE- judge Of the 6uprsme
Court; and there could be no inferior court under
| tli1p uutCD9 SUCH WA QclO OY JUO8Ds
| The powers granted TO the Judges Of tho United
States Supreme Court were exclusive. The Coasli-
tuition gave to the several departments Of the Unit
ted States Government certain specific powers,
pressly given. Hence Congress had not power 70
establish any court except such the Constituton
provided for. If the Commissioner was not judge
he could not exercise judicial power Hsnce i Be.
came an important inquiry, what were judicial
| powers? And was the Commissioner called upon
in this case to exercise them! II 70, he was bound
to refuse. He was bound to determine whether
Was the power, then, ! iud}eial powsrf Ths iu-
dicial power was defined In the "a seo. of Ia "a
article, which he read. Did this claimant invokps
and did this act provide, for such procesdines -
case! suit was case. Any proceeding whore
| by any party demands right. He hid not had
time to look up those cases that he had read, much
less TO look after others. IT. therefore, there was
not sufficient accuracy in his mode Of statement,
this must be his apology. .sxs sf
! case was where Z Claim was made bS one par
~ and resisted BY. another. IA cass ~ law law was
such case as he had described whlnk Nae not u
case in equity or in admiralty. Any pHpc48ding Of
any kind was case at law, unless tS Sal1D under
the other Of those described IA th$ Conetitu
ton. He read from the 10th Of Peters. 6l6th page,
accordance with the definition he had given. He
read also from the 9th OF Wheaton. Cohens ~ yir-
| ginia, S78-9, and alec In the case Of Prigg -.
claim Of mastcr for slave to bs sscase arising
under the Contribution within the express dcclAre-
tion Of the judicial power.
He did not deny that Congress might, direct the
mode in which this might Be done, but Congrsss
could not confer these powers upon any but Judi
cial officers. They could not confer Judicial pow
ers upon an executive officer, NOR could they cone
Congress could az well confer judicial power upon
United States marshal a. upon commissioner
II this wero not 30, of what use written C0A{
stitution! One important object Of z written QoMs
~t{k n~~~~~
Government distinct and separate. i }SFs
The judicial power extended to cases in nv aS1
equity. The case of Persons and Bedford oontAiQS6
e fuller definition Of what cases in law wsfe;
Sd Of Peters, 1876, he road to show that the trainers
OF the Constitution, whore they spoke Of law, had
the common law in their minds. 'The amcndment
might be considered as embracing all cases NOT in
equity or admiralty I" So said tho United States
Supreme Court. The 9th section Of tho act spoka
of this action cease from which he read; and
the Supreme Court said il was case Of law.
II fell within the definition of the Supreme Court.
i was case at law, within the meaning Of thc -
article, and the Supreme Court had decided that
this came within the judicial power.
Mr.. Curtis said the counsel did not state II guile
correctly. The Commissioner was TO give him =
certificate authorizing him to convey him to the
| State where he was held. " s
| Mr. Rantoul said this certificate did not compel
him @ to carry the party back 70 that Stare.
soner concurrent Jurisdiction with the court. "A
Commissioner was an officer appointed to perform
an inferior act; but court, and court alone, I'M
dertook to decide cases finally. This law gnve u
Commissioner not the power to perform any sub
ordinate office, but to exercise concurrent iuriG.
dicton; and iurisdiction Of law well Of fact
and their decision was above the Supreme Court,
could recall him.
Mr.. Curtis said the certificate authorized thS
claimant to take him back 70 the State whence be
! escaped, and nowhere else
Mr.. Rantoul. An authority was not I command.
/ Suppose under the warrant granted this claimant
should be authorized to take this person back 70
Georgia, and this agent Of the claimant sold him In
Maryland, would that sale be illegal?
| The Commissioner. Most certainly. The sale
| would be entirely void.
| Mr.. Rantoul thought if his honor had arrived at
such conclusion, it must be by direct inspiration.
for there not word in the act 70 the contrary.
The claimant might carry him to Georgia, to Tex :
| as, or to Cuba, or anywhere else. It was exceed
ingly important that the court should give careful
consideration to this point, because there was no
It might be said that this was mere prelimina-
\ ry step, analogous TO an examination previous to
trial. But this was not parallel case, because
ant to carry the slave back to the State whence be
escaped, and Of course there was no provision for
subsequent trial.
That thi. was the judicial power. in tho under
letter Of Attorney General Critenden to the Pres-
dent, before the act was signed. Il appeared that
the President doubted the consttutionality Of the
! law. The Attorney General in his reply used hn-
| guagc which assisted them in this case.
The Attorney General says these officers have
judicial powers to hear and decide the case. The
! Attorney General therefore determined that these
officers had judicial power. He did not quote him
as authority upon the point he had in view, for Re
was not anticipating the objection he himself was
raising; but he quoted him as showing that what
me Commissioner had TO do the exercise Of iu-
| dicial power. Fs
He could not say this if ho had regarded il mere
/ ly as preliminary case or ministerial act Tho
Attorney General called it an "act Of Judgment,
This act of Judicial posoer. Hare the Attor-
termined upon tribunal TO determine Summarily
and without appeal who are fugitives from service.
/ Here was the question the Commissioner was to
determine ultimately and without appeal: Was
not this judicial power? The main question was
/ the question 10 be determined hero.
But II this were the preliminary proceeding. then
II was more gross and direct violation Of the Con-