The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-09-05
The Fugitive Slave Case Mt Buffalo.

|
| OPINION OF JUDGE CoSKLING, ON GRANTING A ia.
BEAS COkPCS.
An order ni having been granted by me- several days
for writ OF habeas corpus ad sucendum, 10 bring
before the body OF DANIEL Davis, for the purpose OF
inquiripg into the legality o his confinement, IN the
custody Of one OF the deputy marshas OF this district
and the case having been fully argued by counsel and
considered By me- to declare my opinion Of the
law thereupon The Is in its calculated
know by experience, the passions
ana prrudices OF men III this part Of the Union aud
tb. ncy in the present instance, has been unhap
ply inhamsd by extraordinary incident reported to
have attended the original arrest OF the petitioner But
IN. umstnpces TO winch have alluded however de-
porsb- It T. scarcely necessary to observe can have no
legitimate influence Whatever upon the decision
OF the question before me, and are TO be remen-
be-.d, II at all, only for the purpose OF inspiring
deeper Of judicial duty, and greater caution ic
It's discharge. lf the prisoner If entitled by law TO
the privilege OF the writ OF habas corpus, 1t must be
awara.d; ii not be withheld; aud in neither
the result afford any just ground for dssss-
faction. still less any apology for the indulgence OF
spirit characterization TO the laws OF the land IL is
proper the outset to that a hoped and
lecled when the order mai made, the merits OF the
case fully before they could be on the
return VI writ haisas corpus should granted
The real question decided therefore, is whether
the petitioner Is entitled HE discharge 1t is
obvious web established rule that when, upon
application Tor ifaLens Corpus. II appears that II
would he fruitless to the petitioner allowed II Is
not 10 be granted Before proceeding 10 al exami-
nation Il the merits Of this application. 1t may
not be amns TO advert to the source Of the power
which | am called upon to exercise. The government
1t the United states is one Of expressly delegated
powers and it, functiopares exercise no authority
has b.sn conferred bv the constitution, or by laws
passed in accordance Herewith To guard against pos
sb restrictions Of the great privilege Of hab,a eorPa
deemed e1pedient, by express provision OF the
uluion forbid its suspension unless when In
OF rebellion invasion the public safety might require
IL With Ibis excrptit was LEFT one of the elements
incid. OF Judicial power % be regulated by law
and ia order to it vitality 1t WAS necessary for Con
gree. power grant IT, and TO designste
the functonsries by whom this power should be exer
csed This done by the lath section OF the Judicial
Act OF 1850 which has been authoritivey nterpre
.aft Ifntf.I -faa and fha
Judges thereof with the power TO issue this writ
for the purpose OF nquriug into the OF commit
mept.r The act does not describe the cases la
which this form Of remedy may be resorted TO-
nor does IL define the power OF the Court or Judge
in csse. where IL lies Recourse Tor these purposes
must therefore be had to tue Common Law, and es-
pcsy the celebrated aeas Corpus act OF 81 Charles
H. designed to correct and eiectuay to guard against
the scandious evaions aud abuses by which the pract
cal cxcy Of the Habecs Corpus had become in
great degree destroyed during the arbitrary reign Of the
swsrtwout, Cranchs rs q Condens, r. 33i Parfe
Watkins, Peters H. ly3 2Ol 2o2
Ills Honor quo ed at length the authorities cited at
the argument and especially the pario kearney
Wheat. r. 80 and ,r garie Watkins, PETERS r. 1873;
the latter being mainly relied on BY the counsel Tor
the claimant" aud which establish the principle ths,
when by court 81 competent jurisdiction isment
In Its nature final hss ouce been pronounced cannot
be- reviesed On Haeas Corpus and he then proceeded
IL upsn this principle that the claimant relies and
the question w. shether or not II furnishes the rule OF
decision tor the present For the purpose Of deter
mining this question IL H. proper To examine into the
Of the adj udicstion which H. proposed TO bnsg
under review The Indication made By OF the
Conms.,epers Of tbs United states for this judicial
District The ofhce Of q, mmissioner created
by an Act 81 Congrrss. passed In lsi2 BY which
the several Circuit Courts authorized 10 ap
point suitable persons TO take Acknowledgements Of
bail and sfhdA,its, In civil cause. depending In
ter the persons 80 appointed authorized perform
the like services In In the district courts by this
latter act aud other subsequently passed other
powers we're successfully conferred upon these officers
and lastly ty the first section Of the act q september
1850 known as the fastve slave act they are ss'no
powers and duties conferred BY this act the fourth
section further declares that the Commissioners soa
have jurisdiction with the Judges Of the CIR
District Courts Of the United states in their
respective circuits and districts" by the sxh section
Il sso enacted that the certificates 10 be granted under
the set shs be conclusive the right Of the pcrsos in
whue favUr granted to remove sucn fugitves TO tue
state terrtory from which ne escaped, aud shall pre-
vent all moestatioB VI such person persons by any
prres issued BY any court judge magistrate VI other
person whatsoever" Nos, Whatever ground for doubt
any might have existed independently Of this enact
m.nt concerning the legal force aud effect Of these
certificates, may, i think. be safely assumsd
this respect substantially on the footing Judgments
rendered by judicial tribunals In cases within their
juri,oicton But notwithstanding the vide scope of
the doctrine laid down ~ the supreme Court Ia tins
wstkns am also Of opinion aud indeed this was
distinctly sdpstted by the learned aud able counsel
who spp~sr.d for the claimant, that this conciusve
effect can be ssctibsd to certificate only when sp-
tesrs it, face that wss granted or ct least accord
ipe TO some reasonable probation OF it's language
ana in pursuance the authority thereby conferred
Unqucstonsbiy II should appear 70 have been granted
by person having power TO grant IT, and csedng In
manner wArsnted BY the act IL is only to such GER
tnc.tes that the principle Of Law relied on by the
coup.s for the claimant, be applied ami sucn only
can Congress be presumed to have had In viev re-
sret that the circumstances Of the and my
Indispensable engagements, requiring my Immediate
70 q part II the district preclude
from terrifying vuciJatirg this proposition, aud ~.
ccpcirs 1t with the ease e. pare Watkins BY a re-
f.r.pce to authorities. but I snail assume IL ss
upauetiopabe The counsel for the petitioner denies
thai the certificate in question IL u this chsras
ter one Of the objections to its suiciency H. that
I'd. PERSON by whom IL was granted IL therein de-
serbs Commissioner appointed by the Second Cir
cut Court aud ~ COr1nis roner appointed BY the
rirruit Court for the Second Circuit, when In truth
Their. Is no such and Of course such commits
susr The objection IL in point VI fact ~ IL there
wac not another u more serious nature this would at
east r, aute consideration But II Is further objected
that the case the petitioner not embraced by the
act a. rather by that part Of u under which the pro-
ce.o,pa was tertained and by which atone It could
have been authorized IL Is due TO the highly respeca
be gentleman by whom the certificate vss granted 10
ttstv, that this objection appears not TO have been
made before him and probably II not thought Of ~
him or until afterwards, BY the counsel for the petit
uuncr The claimant So. fl 70 avail himself ofthe pro-