The Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn. Territory) 1849-1855, 1853-05-26

by adverting to the section already quoted. No
copy OF any indictment has been furnished. All
thai was sent was the document before noticed
and recited. 1t was contendcd that, even if this
'cument contained the requisite matter, it would
not be sufficient, as it does not purport to he an
affidavit, OF copy Of affidavit, bat q tram
script from the docket Of magistrate.
As to the correctness of this position ! do not
deem II necessary to decide, | consider this, so
called affidavit charging with crime, entirely un.
worthy Of consideration.
mere glance at the paper must, think. satisfy
the most superficial observer that il only does
contain the evidence contemplated by the act OF Con-
gress but that does not contain any evidence what
ever giving the Governor Of this Territory jurisdic
ton. This is too obvious to admit of argument.
But II is SAID that The Governor Of Ohio has d =
manded the prisoner and says that appears to him
by the annexed papers that Lyman Ruby stands
charged with the crime of forgery and that it has
been represented tha, he has fed from the Justice Of
sand State and has taken refuge in the Territory Of
Minnesota, and that this is enough The act Of
Congress evidently contemplales that the proper evil
! dence should be presented to the Governor making
the requisiton, and also that such evidence should be
transmitted 10 the executive upon whom the demand
Is made. For what purpose this evidence re-
CURED save guide action! Unless the evil
dence sustain the statement in the requsi,ion that
requistion goes for naueht.
only regard the facts set forth in the affidavit
Ihs overstatements in the requsition and warrants
unless corroberaed by the proper evidence cannot
be received TO deprive citizen of his liberty and
transport him to the State of Ohio for trial.
In Pemnsy lyania the warrant usually issues to the
judicial officers who make the necessary examination
50 Tar as 10 ascertain that the Of Congress has
been complied with and then (the identity of the ac-
cused being established and the authority of the
agent shown) the warrant IS made by order OF the
Judicial magistrate IN pursuance of the warrant OF
the Governor. (U. S. Criminal Law, 26l.)
y doubt has been expressed whether the prisoner
can have the full benefit of the habeas corpus act
that as the Governor acts under the laws of the
United States this is distinguished from one
arising under own laws. This distinction is not
we'll founded.
If We NAV inquire into the legality Of commit
mcnl where the accused is TO be sent Of the
territory forttor, may inquire where IT pro-
posed to send him another aud distant urisdic ion.
The writ OF habeas corpus is writ of liberty, aud
the accused, matter by what authority he have
been arrested, is entitled the full benefit OF any III
quiry into the legality Of his Imprisonment. 1t is
beyond the power Of Congress to deprive the citizen
OF this great Constitutional right
The object and purpose of the habeas corpus act
is to review the acts OF executive tunctionary
well As of petty officer or private citizen. The
Immediate of the great habeas corpus act, 3lst
Charles IL, was the arbitrary Imprisonment of an
obscure individual. by the King. That act was con-
sdcred protection of the rights and principles
Of liberty, before established 10y Magma Charta.-
The legality Of the warrants Of Presidents and
kin5s may be, and frequently have been subjected to
the inquiry Of the cause OF capture and detention.
None so high To be beyond its reach and none
So low not to be entitled to its protection.
No cases demand a searching scrutiny into
the evidence upon which they based than cases
arising under this article Of the Constitution OF the
United States. 1t is proposed to deprive of
his liberty and deliver him into the custody Of
gers be transported to place far from his friends
and his business 1t is which all officers
should strictly made out.
Here aside from the mere legal merits of the mat
ter, there reasons for gid scrutiny. The offence
il committed happened than year ago
Ample time too finding indictment has elapsed
The absence Of an indictment is therefore at least,
cause for close examination.
The proceedings were not probably investigated
very cautiously by the Governors Of Ohio and Of
this Territory. Had they been DO not believe that
they would have assumed Jurisdiction in the
Ii upon the paper before the court Ruby may he
sent to Ohio no man is safe. An affidavit similar
that sent hitheg in this may I've contrived with
ont difficulty against any Ia the community
The fact that such abuse may be perpetrated under
the rule commended for by the Attorney General is of
Itself, the best proof that there is such rule
Ii is my duty To inquire into the cause Of de-
tention not merely it appears the warrant by
which the accused is held, but may appear from
any fact alleged, to show the Imprisonment unlawful.
| have therefore gone behind this warrant and in
CURED into the legality Of the fon ation which !;
rests and finding it unsupported by the proper legal
requisites am bound e. declare that the prisoner
can not be held 10y it.
The prisoner must therefore he discharged.
W. ii. ELCH.