Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-11-05
ANTI-SLAVERY BUGLE.
vINDIcATION OF THE LAW.

NAHOlOAIlON Uf IdE LAW.
81 In the Circuit Court Of the United States. for
tho Eastern District of PENNSYLVANIA sitting nj
Philadeiphia, Judge GRIER on Saturday last dcliv-
cred the following opinion ia the case of DEPUTY
d. Marsbals Jenkins and Gro zier, charged with an
assault and battorry on fugitive slave whom they
were endssroring to arrest at Wlkesbarre, Penn
rylvania:
Er Pats LLa Jeakias and james Cjosier
In all cases involving questions concerning the
Jurisdiction and powers of the courts of the Unit
cd States and those of the several States especially
IL they have any eonnexion with the act Vi Con-
agress concerning fugtivos from justice and nor
rons escaping from the service of their masters ("
excite muoli public attention. and seem peculiarly
liable 10 misrepresentation from the garlcd state
meats Of those who undertake to report thcm
q have coneludel to reduce to writing tho opinions
| entertain in this ease.
Our very peculiar institutions, which require Of
every citizen double allegiance and Obedience to
two distinct sovsrcigns. with independent judiciary
systems cmanatng from each, make it especially
necessary that great caution and prudence be ox-
crossed " their respective tribunals in order to
Nyoid any collision conflict in the exercise of
sher respective Jurisdiction over the same subjects
and persons. That there should be great diversity
of opinion az to the limits of the power of either
sovereign and its courts may naturally be cxncct
cd. But, without adopting the political opinions
Of extremists either side il is the duty of courts
in order to have no unpleasant collision, to care
fully avoid the assumption of power not plainly
confded to them, and at the same time, to perform
the duties imposed upon them with irmness and
resolution, disregardng the cainor or the contumc
ly oi heated partisan
The jurisdiction of tho courts of the United
States is limited. but within its limits supreme
The State courts have often in many eases n con-
current jurisdiction over the same subjects aud
persons. But neither can treat the othcr rs an
inferior urisdictiOn except in the cases where the
Constitution aud acts of Congress have given such
power to the courts Of the Union. Where persons
ar property are liable " seizure or arrest bv the
process of both, that which first attached should
have the preference. Any attempt Of either to
take them frpp the cgal custody of the officers of
the other would I've an unjustifablc exercise of its
power. and lead to most dcplorable consequences.
Ihc Irc. II u person bc imprisoned under the
civil or criminal proofs of one, the other cannot
take him from such custody in order to subject him
to punishnleut for an offence against them. a fu.
Eitive cannot be taken from the legal custody oi
the sheriff ly any warrant from the courts of the
lnltcl States, IN order 20 eXtrlditiun under the
acts Of Congress Neither can such fugitive when
in custody oftlc marsha, under legal procc from
judge or commissioner of the United States, be
delivered from such custody by means of n habcas
corpus or any other proofs to for an offence
against the State, whether felony or misdemeanor
or for any other purpose
While the act of Congress does not forbid the
ifslinS of habeas corpus by n State judge, il
carefully guards against the abuse of it, and
!
the United States conclusive evidence of the right
Of the person persons in whose favor it is gran
tcd to remove such fugitive and forbids AL mo-
]estati0n Of such person persons 10y any process
issued ly any court Judge, magistrate, or other
person whomsOcver." This act Ot Congress is The |
supremc law Of the land, and binding ON the con |
science Of State judges well rs those of the
United States. Judges of the United States, rs
well rs of State courts, are therefore bound to dis
miss a writ of bgbeas corpus or to refuse to allow
Vl npa nrn inf oil lnt tIol
prisoner is held by legal process under this act,
and not to suffer il to be abused by mischicvous |
Intermediates for the purpose of "lOlcstation" of
the officer or owner OF the fugitive in cfcctng his
extradiiiOn.
The laws of the United States give ample rcmc-
,dy by habeas corpus for those illegally imprisoned
under color Of their process, and State courts have
in many in stances exercised concurrent iurisdic-
tion in similar cases. But State courts or Judges
have no power under Il habcas corpus to review or
cit in error upon the judgements process of the
judicial officers of the United States acting within
the Jurisdiction committed to them, has some
times been done. have known of one instance
land heard of others) where fugitive legally in
custody has been discharged on habeaS corpus,
under prctence or aifcctatfOn Of judicial ignorance
that slavery existed in Virginia. Such an abuse .
of Judicial discretion was held to be defence to
those who knowingly rescued the fugitive by means
of it. Whether such an Illegal discharge would
protect the Marshal from the high penalty inflicted
ON him for permitting an escape may well be
doubted; and if he should resist it, as possibly he
would, it would lead to a very unpleasant conflict,
which every good citizen should he careful to
prevent.
have made these remarks, MS preliminary to /
entering upon the question now before us, in order
to rcctify misapprehensi0n and gross misapplica-
tion Of those made on former occasion, and also
that persons whose zeal in favor of iugtivcs is
sometimes permitted so far to outrun their discre-
tion may be aware of the mischicvous consequen-
.aes, 10th to themselves and others which are like
ly to opspe from attempts thus to abuse the process
OF Sthte Courts, and bring them into conflict with
those of the United States
The prisoners John Jenkins and James Crozicr, .
have been brought before the Court by virtue of n
writ of habeas corpus issued and allowed ny me ,
on the 4th of October and directed TO j. b. Ch0i-
let The petition for this writ sets forth that the
petitioners are deputies of the Marshal Of the
pnited States for this district. that warrant
placed in their hands by said Marshal, issued by
j. D. tpgraham, ESD, Commissioner, snd endorsed
bya Jupss Of the Supreme Court, directing them
to arrest negro named William Thomas, who be-
jng held 10 labor and service in the State of Nir
giniA. and owing the same TO n certain lshman
Keith. Of Fanquier county. Virginia. had escaped
thsfefrom into the State of Pennsylvania; that
they proceeded TO Nikesbarre, Luzerne county, /
Pennsylvania whore the fugitive WAS found that
they attempted To arrest him in obedience TO said
warrant; that the arrest was resisted with great
violence and, after severe struggle. the fugitive
eueceeded in escaping. They complain that they
have been arrested and Imprisoned under color of
= warrant from justice of the peace of Lnzerne
county, charging them with an assault and battery
on ssd fugitive, with intent 10 kill aud prny TO be
discharged hom said imprisonment
. 10 this writ Of hsbsas corpus Chollet makes re-
aurn' sAashs defains the prisoners by virtue OF