The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-07-27

Ths Fugitive Slave Case IN Phllanelphia.
[rroO the Philsdslphia Bulstin July IS
Sss Tho W.: PLACED = n; S::
the Court q Quarter Sessions on saturday last still 70
Mains prisoner The fugitive, Bill FsAsr continues in
s custody o. the Aarshal and was present In Court
At IL O'Clock, this norniDg, Deputy Sheriff Balnsyr
Aai wyplssp is.sdi.tsiy 70 prison The deputy
Sheriff waited upon tbs Marshal and notified him Of the
j. W Ashmead, counsel for the Marshal informed the
Deputy sheriff that rbs Marshal was about TO ap
pear before the United States Court and said he would
present the matter 10 Judge Kane.
Mr. AshmsAd then vent into Court, and read the petit
don Of bs Marshal praying for writ Of hAbeas corpus
judge Kane asked show the authority OF this
Mr. Ashmead read from the opinion of Chief Justice
Marshall in the Of fobs Watkins, show that the
United States Courts had such authority Il Is in these
~ d. law OF the United States prescrbes the
In which this great writ sha be issued the power
Of ths court the party brought IT, The term
Is used in the constitution which well under
stood and the judicial authorizes this urt and all
tho courts of the United States and the judges thereof
to ssue the writs for the purpose OF nquDg into the
cause OF The commitmebt ("
this court alone authority to grant writ Of
hsbeas corr u.s. the of 1889. The o, Wat.
kns referred to by counsel is perhaps within the
in ~hch person had been committed by the court
Of the Dist let Of Columbi. upon charge conviction
the United States 1t was an offence against the
United States upon an United States process and the
commitment T was oy court Of , the United
must be determined BY the facts which before
tho Chief Justice and By single detached sentence
It IL unnecessary that the Chief Justice could
not have forgotten that the right to issue his writ Of
hAbeas corpus grated by the fourteenth section Of
the judiciary act which gives power 70 the u District
Jucees to inquire into Of imprisonment. with
this ovso that it shall extend persons in jail by
process Of State Court but only where prisoner may
be brought up witt TO testify. Other aimee
the decision in Watkins all tend to this view Of the
matter and maintain This distinction for the
p0se Of avoiding conflict of jurisd,tio between the
State and the United States Courts and to such
courts from interfering with the Of each other
Even the gros writ OF haoeas corpus cannot be issued in
such cases, unless TO the in custody
Witness where it is by color of process Of
tho U. s Court The of Watkins is not case upon
which the writ can issue
Mr. Ashmead rephed-That under the vie v at present
entsrtaiaed b. the Court, it would be unnecessary
lsck for authorities If the opinion Just expressed is
correct, the United States has power protect its
officers.
Judge Kane said-The case Of Gov Dorr decided the
queston at issue that no Judge Of the Supreme Court
has right to issue writ Of habeas pus, where
prisoner is in custody der process Of State court but
TO. the purpose of using him as witness.
Mr.. Ashnead replied That it was o lamentable state
of things. If such is The law.
Judge KaIe interrupted counsel, by stating that he
would not hear argument upon the wrts but simply
10 whether this had the right to issue the writ
He would not inquire into the policy CT the law.
Mr. Ashmesd said-H = Law mas q fundamental defect,
will your Honor not hear is dscussedS
Jucge Kane REFLECTIVE now hearing an argument
porte. If counsel can show any decision of peror
court sustaining his of the the writ will ISSUE
II you VII bring statute susceptible of two meanings
will hear argument
Mr.. Ashmesd-f the decision in Doris case, and the
act Of Congress settles the matter it useless to look
for other cases .ant to show that the petition for
habeas corpus In the below does not forth that
Fishes was in the custody of any body BY virtue of
prooess Of State Court.
Judge Kane-You have now for the first time present.
oil . fact
W. Ashmead-The petition to your Honor says that
the Martial Il unjusty held BY the Sheriff
Judge Kane-No pehuon has been presented to mel
had IN IN
The petition thea banded to Judge Kane who read
and said II it was not presented with view to take
the Marshal out Of the custody of the person to whom
the State Court had con-iynsdhm he would hear
Sc! but If OF hsrwi.s The writ could not be issued.
Mr.. Ashmead replied that the petition presented
IN tho shaps 1t was handed to him BE could admit
deny nothing.
Judge Ksne-I owing TO the opening of counsel that
the Court has throrn certain ntia,atona. II the
petition not to take the Marshal out Of the custody
Of tho sheriff, the writ Of haSeas corpus will issue.
would rather that the petition should be amended If
it is meant that the sheriff holds him by virtue Of pro-
issued of the State Court, would quaah the
writ. l would like thu language more definite, by
change of phrassology.
Tho writ was then granted by the Court.
AArshal Wynkoep was brought into court BY Deputy
Sheriff VIM NJ Bilmeyer, when his counsel, Mr. Asa
mead, Aked thas the q s. Marshal might be permitted
TO make statement to the Court
This granted when the Marshal and recited
the facts OF the have been before published
and wished to kno. whether hsshad acted right in the
premises. He had throughout the whole matter acted
oonscentousy and only thought to do his duty the
Marshal of the United States
Mf. Ashmead remarked that the Marshal had acted
right in the position assumed BY him, in his (Mr A')
opinion.
Judge KaLe said-Le. where stand. Upon
petition for habeas corpus the writ had issued to the
Sheriff to which that officer axes return that he holds
the Marshal upon an attachment issued BY State
Court, a charge Of contempt in refusing to obey
directing him to br,1 before it the body Of Bill
Fher The Marshal adnits that he has the person in
he to
Judge has clearly defned the authority Of the United
States The language in DORIS distinctly defines
the power of the United States Court The petition pre-
sented to is cepble Of two pretatons 1t
the Marshal in the custody of the Sheriff. but does not
soy that It under process Of State Court State
Court has power 70 commit for a contempt for that
which Is upon its records This Court has authority
to interfere BY hsssas sp The very return Of the
That the Sheriff holds the MarshA by virtue process
issued out Of State court The writ granted by me
visedly IhAvs listened attsnvey 10 a communication
made by the Marshal and must here in justice say that
and CALAMITY and generally better advised. The
writ Of habess corpus. however, must be obeJed, no
matter to whom addressed This is indispensable to
tbs personal safety OF every 1t is the TO be
obsyed because spurious officers or persons acting
dor color of law might Otherwise consummats in.
meritorous officer but to it might be issued
one who would feel disposed entirely to disregard it.
with an evil mind The writ must be obeyed
can apparent exceptions, but they apparent
only Where it would endapger the life Of person by
bringing him into court. where high political into
rized by the abstraction OF important officer. such
the at New Orleans, where refusal TO obey the
writ might enoaDger the country, and where . retort
upon the judge tho Issued the writ deemed
oessery for The safety Of the country. But this
extreme The ntjal point OF return to a writ
of habess corpus IL that the person to whom is issued
has not the body has it in court Where writ
issued which directed officer to dsobey writ Of the
United States, painful conflict would arise; but such
was the
Mar,hal W. nkoop again explained that he only wshed
to be right in the matter.
Judge Kanelt would not place the body of the person
whom the Marshal has in custody under the jurisdiction
OF the court to which he makes a return to q
writ of habeas corpuf where another court has ursdic
ton OF the matter with which suoh person is charged the
latter court having previously had the body in custody
Toe hal doubt, acted ander Misrepresentation Of
duty.
Mr.. Afhmead said the Marshal had opportunity to
discuss the question whether he bound to the
prisoner before State court after he had received
nands from competent tribunal to take him TO Mary
laDd.
Judge Kane replied that the only question before him
whether he had thoriy 70 issue the writ and he
had determined that he had dsne 80 unadyisedy,