Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-11-05


certain warrant issued by Gilbert Burroughs. q
Justice of the peace for the borough of Wilkes
barre, and endorsed by an alderman of Phiadcl
pha.
;. The warrant sets forth an information, upon tho
II oath OF certain William Gilderslcevc, "thn
81 George Wynkoop, John Jenkins, and James Croz
Ter, in riotous manner with pistols and Other
weapons, beat ana wounded a certain colorcd mar
named Bill, and that they assaulted beat, ant
abused the said Bill, as the deponent believed, will
intent to kill him."
On the return of this writ on Wednesday last
Objection was made to any action by the Court up
on 1t by learned counsel, who appeared without
stating on whose behalf or by whom thcv vcr,
authorized to interfere in the matter Being desi
r0us to hear any objection which could be made ~
to the cxtont of the power of the cours in thi,
j matter, these gentlemen were willingly heard q,
i dmici c'Uie, without any inquir. MS to who hat
authorized them to take part in the proceedings
\ II was objected that the Court had no authorit,
to discharge the prisoners, because they wore held
by warrant from the State magistrate for az
alleged criminal offence against the State of Penn
sylyania, and that the warrant was conclusive eyi
] dencc of the fact To habcas corpus issued b,
this Court, under the general authority conferred
ON them by the judiciary act. this objection would
he conclusive. But this writ was not allowed and
issued under the general law but under the spec-
lal powers conferred by the seventh section Of tho
.
which, so far as material to our present inquiry is
rs follows:
" And be farther cnQeisd, That either Of the
Justices Of the Supreme Court, or JUDGE Of any
District Court Of the United States. in addition TO
tho authority already conferred by law shall have
power to grant writs Of habcas corpus in al cases
Of n prisoner or prisoners in Jail or confinement.
where he or they shall bc committed or confined
on or by dny authority or lac fer any art done oy
omHfcd 10 Je done IN pursuance qf q lar Of Me I'M
ted SUITES, or any order, process, decree Of any
Judge or court thereof any thing in any act Of
Congress to the contrary Notwithstanding
For the purpose of the discussion and argument
OF this point it was necessary to assume that the
facts set forth in the prisoners petition were truc
leaving the proof of them to be made out after
wards. The petition states distinctly that the
prisoners have been committed for an act done in
executing process issued in pursuance Of u law of
the United States. 1t therefore comes within the
provisions Of this act.
The writ Of habcas corpus is a high prcroga-
tive writ known to tho common law: the great
Object Of which is the liberation Of those who may
be imprisoned without sufficient cause Il is in
the nature Of writ of error, 10 examine the LEGAL
ity of the commitments it brings the body Of the
prisoner up, together with the cause Of his confne-
ment. The court can, undoubtedly. inquire into
the suiiiciency of that cause" See ex parte
Watkins, Peters pol.
n warrant Of arrest issued by n Justice of the
peace has none of the characteristics of n udc-
mcnt OF Il court of record, and is therefore not
conclusive evidence that the prisoner is rightly de-
prvcd Of his liberty 1t Is every days practice to
inquire into it's 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 habcaS corpus would little deserve the cu-
logies which 1t has received rs protection to the
liberty of the citizen.
Wnrrnutg pf ieopn1 r
private iniormers may show On their face prma
iacie charge sufficient to give jurisdiction to the
justice hut il may be founded on mistake. igro-
rance, malice. or perjury. To put II case very
similar to the present. \ tells B that he has seen
& kill ID; u runs of to n justice, swears to The
murder boldly without any knowledge Of the fact,
aud takes out warrant for G. who is arrested and
imprisoned in consequence thereof c prays
habeas corpus, and shows that he was the sheriff
of the comfy, and hanged in pursuance of Il
legal warrant. If a court could not discharge a
prisoner in such case, because the warrant was
regular it's face the writ of habeas corpus is of
little use. Every arrest of the person is an assault
and battery, and attended with force and violence
against resisting party; and if made by three on
more persons is II riot, provided the fact be con-
cealed that it was made in execution of legal
warrant
The authority conferred on the judges of the
United States by this act Of Congress gives them
All rue power lhHl any Otllef court COulu exercise
under the writ of habeas corpus, or gives them
none at all. If under such a writ they may not
discharge their officer when imprisoned "by Oay
duiIDyiiy' for an act done in pursuance Of 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 acknowledge their utter impotence to
protect him? This act was passed when certain
State of this Union had threatened TO nuilfy acts
of Congress- and TO treat those ns criminals who
should attempt to execute thcm and ii wac intend
cd as remedy against such State legislation. If.
the State Of Pennsylvania had by act Of Legislature
declared that the fugitive slave law should not bc
executed within her borders, and had directed her
officers to arrest and imprison those of the United
States who should attempt To execute it, would not
this court have been bound to treat such act as
and void, and discharge their Off
GERS from imprisonment under it? And have they
no power to do so, when mischievous intermeddlcrs
endeavor to prevent and abuse State process for
the same purpose? If the Marshal and his officers
may be arrested for serving process, why not the
Commissioner and Judge who issued the process ?
The EXTREMIST advocate Of State rights would
scarcely contend thati such the courts Of the
United States should be wholly unable to protect
themselves or their officers Let us look at the
While the MarshaPs officers in this
case wore ondoavoring to retake the prisoner who
had escaped from them, the person who afterwards
sworc to tho information ON which this warrant
was issued had a warrant put in the hands of the
Sheriff, which he very wisely refused to execute
knowing the persons charged to be acting under
authority Of the laws of the United States. Now
let us suppose the MarshaFs officers had succeeded
in making the arrest and the Sheriff had attempted
to execute the process, what would have been the
consequence?
IL the Marshal resists n contest ensucs, which
may be called, in fact, war between officers, each
acting and iustifying their conduct under proof
from their respective sovereigns If the Sheriff
succeeds. as probably he would, the fugitive is dis
charged, and the officers of the United States con-
veyed to prison. If such a state of affairs can be
brought about at the instance of any mischievous
ar unprncipled person, who is willing to swear
without scruple to that which he does not know to
Le truc or perhaps knows to be false then indeed
has been discovered n safe mode of nulliiyng the
constitution and laws of the United States; Those
riots or the Christiana murder may well rejoice in
the discovery