Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-10-22
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
vINDICATIoN OF THE LAW.

VINDICATI0N OF THE LAW.
In the Circuit Court of the United States for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting at
Philadelphia Judge GRIER on Saturday last deliv-
cred the following opinion in the case of Deputy
Marshals Jenkins and Croxier, charged with an
assault and battery on . fugitive iGAyc whom they
were endeayoring to arrest at WillsssbaTre, Penn
sylvana:
E1 Parte John Jenkins and James Crozier.
As all involving questions concerning the uris
dction and powers of the courts of the United States
and those Of the several States especially If they have
any conneon with the act of Congress concerning fu
gtves from justice and persons escaping from the SER
vice of their masters excite much public attention. and
seem peculiarly liable to Misrepresentation from the
bed statements of those who undertake to report them
have concluded to reduce to writing the opinions en-
tertain in this case.
Our very peculiar institutions which require of every
citizen double allegiance and obedience to two distinct
soveregns with independent judiciary systems emanatng
from each make it especially necessary that great eau
ton and prudence be exercised by their respective rbu
mails in order to avoid any collision conflict in the
of their respective Jurisdiction over the same sub
ects and persons That there should be great diversity
of opinion as to limits Of the power of either sovereign
and its courts may naturally be expected But, without
adopting the political opinions of extremists on either
side it is the duty Of courts in order to have unpea
SAINT collision carefully avoid the assumption of powers
not plainly confded to them, and at the time to
perform the duties imposed upon them with rmness and
resolution dsregardng the clamor the contumey Of
heated partisans.
The Jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is
limited but within its limits supreme. The State courts
have often in many concurrent jurisdiction over
the subjects and persons But neither can treat the
other inferior jurisdiction except in tue where
the Constitution and of Congress have given such
power the courts of the Union Where persons pro-
perty liable seizure arrest by the of both
that which first attached should have the preference
Any attempt of either to take them from the legal custo
dy of the officers of the other would be unustfahle
exercise of its power and lead to most deporabe
quences. Therefore if person be imprisoned under the
ci, criminal proofs of one the other cannot take him
from such custody in order to subject him to punishment
for offence against them. fugitive be taken
from the legal custody Of the sheriff by any warrant from
the courts of the United States in order to extradon,
under the acts of Congress. Neither such fugitive
when in custody of the marshal under legal process from
judge commissioner of the United States, be deliver
ed from such custody by means of habeas corpus
any other proofs 70 answer for offence against
State whether felony or or for any other
purpose
While the act Cougrsss docs Eot forbid the issuing
Of habeas corpus by State Judge it carefully guards
against the abuse Of it, and makes certificate of COM
missioner or Judge OF the United States conclusive cvi
dence of the right of the in whose favor
ii is granted such fugitive, and forbds all
molestaon Of such person persons by any process
issued by any court judge magistrate, or other person
whomsoeyer." This act of Congress is the supreme law
of the land and binding the conscience OF State Judges
as we'll those Of the United States Judges Of the Uni
ted States well as Of State courts therefore bound
to dismiss writ of habeas corpus, or to refuse to allow
is held legal under this act and not to suffer
it to be abused by mischevous ntermedders for the
pose of molestson of the officer or owner Of the fugi-
tive in effccting his extradition.
The laws Of the United States give ample remedy by
habeas corpus for those illegally imprisoned under color
of their process and State courts have in many instances
exercised concurrent jurisdiction in similar cases. But
State courts Judges have no power under haoeas
corpus to review sit in error upon the judgments or
process Of the judicial officers of the United States act
ing within the jurisdiction committed to them, as has
hoop II have
(and heard Of others) where fugitive legally In custo-
y has been discharged habeas corpus under pretence
aecaton Of judicial ignorance that slavery existed
in Virginia Such an abuse of judicial discretion
held TO be defence those who knowingly rescued the
fugitive by Of it. Whether such an illegal dis
charge would protect the Marshal from the high penalty
inflicted on him for permitting escape may well b'
doubted and if he should resist it. possibly he would
it would lead very unpleasant conflict, which every
good citizen should be careful to prevent
have made these remarks preliminary to entering
upon the question before US in order to rectfy
msapprehension and gross misappcaton of those made
former OCCASION and also that persons whose zeal
favor of fugitves is sometimes permitted SO far to out
run their discretion may be aware Of the mischevou
consequences both to themselves and others which
likely from attempts thus to abuse the process
State Courts, and bring them into conflict with those
the United States.
The prisoners John jenkins and James Crozier, hav
been brought before the Court by virtue Of writ Of ha
beas corpus issued and allowed by the 4th of DC
tober, and directed to j. b. Choet The petition for thi
writ sets forth that the petitioners deputies Of th
Marshal of the United States for this district that
placed in their hands by said marshal issue
by E. d. Ingraham, Esq, Commissioner and endorsed b.
Judge Of the Supreme Court directing them to arrest
negro named William Thomas, who being held to labo
and service in the State of Virginia and owing the SANE
to certain Isham Keith, Of Fauquier county, Virginia
had escaped therefrom into the State Of Pennsylvania
that they proceeded TO Wilkesbarre, Luzerne county
Pennsylvania where the fugitive was found; that they
attempted to arrest hm in obedience to said warrant
that the arrest resisted with great violence and az
ter struggle the fugitive succeeded in escaping
They complain that they have been arrested and mprs
oned under color Of warrant from justice OF the peace
of Luzerne county, charging them with assault and
battery said fugitive with intent TO kill and pray u
be discharged from said Imprisonment.
To this writ Of habeas corpus Cholct makes return
that he detans the prisoners by virtue Of certain
rant issued by Gilbert Burroughs Justice Of the peace fol
the borough Of Wilkesbac and endorsed by alder
man Of Philadelphia.
The warrent sets forth information upon the oath
n certain William Gidersleve, "that George Wynkocp
John Jenkins, and James Crozier in riotous manner
with pistols and other weapons, beat and wounded GER
tain colorcd man named B and that they assaulted
beat and abused the said Bl the Gcponent believed
with intent to kill him"
On the return Of this writ Wednesday last objection
was made to any action by the Court upon il by learned
counsel who appeared without stating whose behal
or by whom they authorized to interfere in the
ter Being desirous to hear any objection which could
be made the extent Of the power of the court in
this matter these gentlemen willingly heard as
aic cu without any inquiry as to who had authorized
them to take part in the proceedings.
II was objected that the Court had authority to dis
charge the prisoners because they were held by war
rant from the State magistrate for an alleged crimna