Weekly national intelligencer., 1851-05-10
HIGHLY INTERESTING JUDICIAL OPINION
BY HIGH STATE COURT.
lIroRrrD 70, r1I sosros DAILY 4Dvrarr's


RKroRrED roR TEE Bosrox DAILY ADvsarissA'
Supreme Judicial Court Of Massaehusefts.
MosDAY, APRIL 2, 1881
THoxAs Sims, petitioner for writ OF haoeds co'P"s
We are enabled to give the opinion OF the Court,
which was delivered by Chief Justice SHAW, IN
eIfens0.
This Is petition for writ Of habeas corpus to bring the
petitioner before this court with view 70 MS dscnarge rom
imprisonment upon the grounds stated IN the petition we
were strongly urged issue the writ without inquiry into Its
cause and to hear an argument upon the petitioners right to
discharge on return of the writ This we declined TO do
on grounds Of principle and and we'll settled prac
t;ce Before writ Of habeas corpus is granted sufficient
probable cause must be shown but, when appears upon
the parys own showing that there is sufficient ground
prima faeie ot bis discharge the will not issue the
writ And on slight to the cases. of opin-
ion that this b the established rule and practice at common
law Indeed the ordinary is them for the court ap
piled to grant rule ns in the first instance to show why
The writ should not ISSUE OF course, if sufficient cause is
shown it will be withheld. (Bakes case Marshall, 42s)
And in Hobhousss case (s B. and AID 4so the question
came before the court and fully discussed vas then
considered that whether the writ Of hsbeas corpus were
claimed at common law under the statute proper ground
ought to be laid before the court previously to granting the
q
Nil; not grant the writ Of habeas corpus when they that
Ia the result they the party The court IN that
case-which commitment by the House OF Commons
upon urgent claim that was matter OF rgn aud some
coorabe authority cited in support Of had granad ths
writ In the first instance, and its return had stated the
reasons why il should not have been done.
We think the rule and practice has prevailed 10 tins
country, but have time to examine the authorities
particularly Indeed by necessary implication, it is the fair
result of the provisions Of the habeas corpus act OF this Com
monwealth (R. st. ch 3, 81 requires In all cases
Of application for the writ Of habeas corpus that the party
imprisoned or some person in his behoo shall present
petition and held under legal process, color Pretence
Of legal process he shall copy Of the process under
which the respondent claims to hold and dean him. OF make
proof by affidavit that copy Of such wit or warrant
applied for and refused But why annex copy OF the pro-
cess unless it be enable the court TO form an opinion whe
ther the party rightly held in custody or not And why
form opinion in that stage OF the proceeding TO
constitute ground for judicial action hsursed ha TINS
is writ Of right and therefore grantabe without inquiry
But it is not writ Of right in that narrow and technical
sense If it were the issuing Of it would be mere minse-
rial act the party claiming might 80 TO the clerk and serve
it. he may suit claim for land or money NO ;but
it is writ Of right in larger and more liberal sensea right
to be delivered from all unlawful Imprisonment Nor docs
this limit restrain the full and beneficial operation OF this
writ essential to the protection Of personal liberty The
same court must decide whether the imprisonment complain
ed Of illegal; and whether the inquiry is had in the first
instance the application subsequently, on the return OF
the writ, partly the and partly on the other, must
depend the facts and principles and be governed b
on the presentation Of this somewhat similar petition,
that sufficient appeared upon the petition for grant
ing writ; and upon further consideration we now repeat
that when appears the pays own showing IN the Pe
ton that if brought before the court the petitioner would not
be entitled discharge, the court will not issue the writ
We then examine the petition accompanied as It is
by copy Of the warrant under which the marshal OF the dis
tc claims to hold him, and the return thereon 1t then aP-
pears that the petitioner has been arrested and claimed as
fugitive from labor, upon warrant issued by George T.
Curtis ESQ., Commissioner Of the Circuit Court OF the
United States pursuance of law Of the United States
passed by Congress- and that the deputy marshal has return
ed the warrant TO the commissioner who issued it, and has
the body Of the petitioner before the commissioner for the pur
poses expressed in the warrant.
An obvious question here, how far it is competent
for this court, by writ Of habeas corpus TO the marshall 10
take prisoner from the custody Of another tribunal court or
magistrate of whom such marshal the executive officer and
after the prisoner has, by the execution and return of the
warrant been placed under the control and direction OF such
court magistrates be held discharged, brought in,
moved This point has not been noticed in the argument
and not perhaps Of much Importance and perhaps might
be avoided by amendment Of the petition But we have
thought worthy of passing remark, OF those cons
deratons which presented themselves to minds, after
similar had been submitted former occasion, indicate
ing that apparently and be face Of the proceedings the
petitioner was in regular and lawful custody.
1t is argued that the whole proceeding, appears
upon the warrant and return is unconstitutional and vod
BECAUSE although the statute Of the United States Of 1850
has provided for and directed this Of proceedings yet
that the statute itself void because Congress had no power
and confer such authority. The ground OF argument
leading this conclusion that is not competent for Con-
gres under the power Of legislation vested in them BY
constitution, to confer any authority, 10 its nature judicial
upon any persons magistrates boards other than organ
zed Of justice held by judges, appointed such and
hold their Offices during good behavior and paid by fixed
salaries whereas the commissioners designated by the law in
question: do not hold their Offices during good behavior
are they paid by fixed salaries This is the argument.
We called on to consider two questions frst whether
Congress has authority pass any law the subject and
second whether the law actually passed did, in any respect
of which the petitioner had right complain, violate the
provisions Of the constitution. These grave questions
and is impossible approach them without deep sense
of responsibility which must rest any Judicial tribunal
when called upon to deliberate upon the constutionay OF
any legal enactment adopted by the highest Legislative body Of
the Union and passed under all the forms required to give
the sanction Of law. @
The subectmaer Of this the return and restoration
Of fugitive slaves, designated in the constitution as persons
held service labor in State under the laws thereof
escaping into another. The whole provson Art W. Sec
8, Is as follows:
No held to service labor in State under the
laws thereof escaping into another SHALL consequence OF
any law regulation therein be discharged from such service
labor but shall be delivered up claim of the party to
whom such service or labor may be due"
In order to just understanding and exposition fhis pro-
vision Of the constitution, and the laws made under il It
necessary refer briefly to the circumstances under which
the constitution made, and the great social and political
objects and purposes which the people Of the United States
had in view in adopting it. The constitution of the United
States not to be expounded If opened for the
first time, and with sole regard the words and figures
which expressed its history is deeply interviewer
with whole social system to be dsegarded when called