Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1851-04-17
The Habeas Corpus---A Case in
Massachusetts

In the case of Smms, fugitive slave, writ
of habess corpus was asked Of the Supreme
Court ofMassachusetis, and denied hy tina, Court,
after argument This decision the Union Bhig
regards as good authority against the habeas cor
pus act Of Vermont, and quotes it as such. We
regard it precisely in the opposite light
The question presented by Vermont is this;-
Can state court, when specially authorized by
statute, inquire into the ground for the arrest by
Fedcra authority, of an'fnhabi,art Of Vermont
charged with being fugitive slayes So far
from deciding that question, the Supreme court
of Massachusetts, ondeavored to dodge even this
question: May not State court Interfere iciitout
sgeciql statute We quote from Judge Shaw:
"rhe petition stated that the prisoner was i'm
prisoned in the court house, as fugitive slave,
by Marshal Devens. Here was one obvious
question whether It was competent for this court
to issue writ of habeas corpus to Interfere with
the proceedings of another tribunal, bit they hat
not thought necessary 10 notice his pojai.'
But it was neither easy nor safe to dodge the
question entirely--so it seems, at lelsi,-and the
Court fully admitted that cases may arise undcr
the fugitive Stare act in chich il ,could be the d,iy
ofhe Siate Courts to iniefpose against Die Fiacr-
NJ Cotuis--'he State against the Fc4erai Gouern-
meni We quote the words of Chief Justice
Shaw;
lie DID not say there might not be case
whore ii would be a duty for one to mtcrpose o.
gainst the other, but it was TO be apppr1gchcd
wth great dchcacy"
Again; the Court intm1tod three cascs iu
which, il Is to be inferred, they would interfere #
necessary;
"rhis state Massnchusotts) had heretofore
decided that the provision lthc fugitive slave
clause of the u. S. Constitution was 90 Doe car
iiea INTO effect literally tptcd 10 tie case prouid-
81 for. It Ind been held 10 ibis State ihgi If the
owner lof the slaycl brought him into tue State.
he did not come under the ~ s. cons6utunaD
provision. But this had been considered free
dom. II he should leave home in Qny ohey 0aL
If he was mol fugifss from labor, he was free
IN the case of slave on board e man of war, il
was held that his muster could not take hum a.
way. Why? not because he was brought here
by bus master, but because he was brought here
by power superior to both"
Now, with this specific admission that cases
mag nise proper for the habeas corpus, even with
ont the authority Of a special statute, and with
this statement of three kinds Of cases liable to
arise, we take it that the Legality Of a law Ike
Vermont's, authorizing the Judges to issue the
writ, is in fact affirmed b. the Massachusetts,
judges. 1t covers he principle Of the Vermont
law. But in this case Of Smms, the hlbeas cor
pus was refused. Why? The Court regarded
It os a question Of discretion, and in this case.
satisfied that Simms was really a slave and the
petition fiction, and also that he had another
remedy by habeas corpus from the L $ Circuit
District Judge, the state judges stock the res
possibility" Of denying the writ. Il is is hardly
safe to dismiss a case without hearing legal tes-
tmony yet 1T is not very dangerous, when the
evidence is palpable, as it was in this case, to
every body
We are glad the Supreme Court Of Massachu-
sets has been called 70 Consider this matter. Its
admission is oppotune-iust the thing to rebut
Ex-senator Phelps Virginia letter.