Washington sentinel., 1853-10-18

an alleged criminal offence against the State of
Pennsylvania; and that the warrant was con-
elusive evidence of the fact. To habeas cor
| pus issued by this court under the general au-
thority conferred ON them by the judiciary act
this objection would be conclusive. But this
writ was not allowed and issued under the gen
eral law, but under the special powers conferred
by the seventh section of the act of Congress
OF second OF March, 1888, ch. 81; which, so
iar as IS material to our present inquiry, is as
follows:
And be it further enacted, that either Of the
justices of the supreme court, or Judge of any
district court of the United States in addition
to the authority already conferred by law, shall
have power to grant writs of habeas corpus in
att cases OF prisoner or prisoners in Jail or
confinement, where he or they shall be commit
ed or confined on, on by any authority or laac
for any act done Or omitted to be done Il, puysat-
ance Of lap Of the United States, or any order,
process or decree Of any Judge or court thereof,
anything in any act Of Congress to the con
trary Notwithstanding"
For the purpose of the discussion and argu-
ment of this point, it was necessary to assume
| that the facts set forth in the prisoners peti-
ton were true, leaving the proof of them to be
made out afterwards. The petition states dis
j tinctly that the prisoners have been committed
for an act done in executing process issued in
pursuance of a law of the United States. 1t
| therefore comes within the provisions Of this
| act. .a st
"The writ Of habeas corpus is high pre-
rogative writ known to the common law; the
great object of which is the liberation of those
who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause.
1t is in the nature of writ of error to exam
| mo tho 1aoo1sty nf fha
the body of the prisoner up, together with the
cause Of his confinement. The court can un-
donbtedly enquire into the suficiency Of that
| use.'-(See ex parte Watkins, Peters, 2Ol.)
A warrant of arrest issued by Justice OF
the peace has none Of the characteristics of
judgment of a court Of record, and is therefore
not conclusive evidence that the prisoner is
rightly deprived of his liberty. 1t is every
days practice to inquire into its regularity, and
whether it has been issued on sufficient grounds
to Justify the arrest and imprisonment. If this
could not be done the writ of habeas corpus
would little deserve the eulogies which it has
received as protection to the liberty of the
citizen Warrants of arrest, issued on the ap-
plication of private informers, may show on
j their face primd facie charge sufficient to
give jurisdiction to the justice; but it may be
founded on mistake, ignorance, malice or per-
jury. To put case very similar to the pres
ent, A tells B that he has seen G kill ID. B
runs off to a justice, swears to the murder
boldly without any knowledge of the fact, and
| takes out u warrant for G, who is arrested and
imprisoned in consequence thereof G prays
habeas corpus, and shows that he was the
/ sheriff of the county, and hanged ID in pursu-
ance of legal warrant. If court could not
discharge prisoner in such case, because the
warrant was regular on its face, the writ of ha-
beas corpus is of little use. Every arrest Of
the person is an assault and battery, and at
tended with force and violence against q resist
ing party; and if made by three or more per-
sons, is riot, provided the fact be concealed
that it was made in execution of legal warrant.
The authority conferred on the judges Of the
United States by this act of Congress give them
all the power that any other court could exer-
else under the writ Of habeas corpus, or gives
| them none at all. If under such q writ they
may not discharge their officer when imprisoned
| "by any authority for an act done in pursu-
ance of a law of the United States,' it would be
impossible to discover for what useful purpose
| the act was passed. . Is the prisoner to be
| brought before them only that they may nc
| knowledge their utter impotence to protect him?
| This act was passed when certain State Of
| this Union had threatened to nullify acts of
Congress and to treat those as criminals who
| should attempt to execute them; and it was
| intended as a remedy against such State legis-
lation. If the State Of Pennsylvania had by
act of legislature declared that the fugitive law
should not be executed within her borders, and
had directed her officers to arrest and imprison
those ofthe United States who should attempt to
execute it, would not this court have been bound
i to treat such act as unconstitutional and void,
and discharge their officers from Imprisonment
under it? And have they no power to do so,
when mischievous intermeddlers endeavor to
prevent and abuse State process for the same
purpose? lfthe marshal and his officers may
be arrested for serving process, why not the
commissioner and Judge who issued the pro-
cess? The EXTREMIST advocate of State rights
would scarcely contend that in such cases the
courts of the United States should be wholly
unable to protect themselves or their officers.
Let us look at the consequences. While the
marshal's officers in this case were endeavoring
to retake the prisoner who had escaped from
them, the person who afterwards swore to the
information on which this warrant was issued,
had warrant put in the hands of the sheriff,
which he very wisely refused to execute, know
ing the persons charged to be acting under
authority Of the laws of the United States.
Now, let us suppose the marshals officers had
succeeded in making the arrest, and the sheriff
had attempted to execute the process, what
would have been the consequence? IF the
marshal resists q contest ensues, which may
| be called, in fact, war between officers, each
| acting and justifying their conduct under proof
| from their respective sovereigns. If the sheriff
succeeds, as probably he would, the fugitive is
discharged and the officers of the United States
conveyed to prison. IF such state of affairs
can be brought about at the instance of any
mischievous or unprincipled person, who is
| willing to swear without scruple to that which
| he does not know to be true, or perhaps knows
to be false; then, indeed, has been discovered
a safe mode Of nullifying the Constitution and
| laws of the United States. Those who cele-
brate the anniversaries of the Syracuse riots
and of the Christiana murder, may well rejoice
at the discovery.
Not believing that the courts of the United
States have been left in this hopeless condition,
or that we are required and authorised to issue
habeas corpus, without any power to release
tho &c up;urt1y tba