Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-10-22

offence against the State of Pennsylvania and that the
was conclusive evidence of the fact To habeas
corpus issued by this Court under the general authority
conferred them by the judiciary act this objection
would be conclusive But this writ not allowed and
issued under the general law but under the special pow
conferred by the seventh section of the act OF Con-
gress of I'd Of March, 1885, CHI 81 which, SO far as ma
terial to our present inquiry, is as follows:
And be Il further enacted That either of the justices of
the Supreme Court judge of any Dis et Court Of the
United States in addition to the authority already conferred
by law shall have to grant wrts Of habeas corpus IN
all of prisoner prisoners in Jail confinement,
where he they shall be committed or confined on or ~ any
authority lam for act doneor omitted 10 DC done "a p-
an Of The United States, or any order process, or
decree of any Judge court thereof thing in any act OF
Congress to the contrary notwithstanding"
For the purpose Of the discussion and argument of this
point it necessary to that the facts set forth
in the prisoners petition true leaving the proof OF
them be made out afterwards. The petition states dis
ncy that the prisoners have been committed for an act
done executing process issued in of law OF
the United States 1t therefore comes within the pro-
visions Of this act.
"The writ Of habeas high prerogatiye writ
known to law; the gr object Of which s the
liberation Of those may imprisoned without sufficient
cause 1t is the nature of writ OF error to examine the
legality commitment it brings the body OF the prisoner
together with the Of his The court
undoubtedly inquire into the sufciency OF that
ex parte Watkins, Peters 20l.
warrant of arrest issued by justice of the peace has
none of the characteristics of judgment OF court OF
record and therefore not conclusive evidence that the
DAVIS practice inquire into its regularity and whether
thas been issued sufficient grounds to justify the arrest
and imprisonment If this could not be done the writ of
habeas corpus would deserve the euloges which has
received as protection to the liberty of the citizen
Warrants of arrest issued the application of private
nformers may show their face prima facie charge
sufficient to give jurisdiction to the jusce but it may be
founded on mistake ignorance malice, perjury. To
put case very similar to the present tells that he
has seen kill off to justice, to the
murder boldly, without any knowledge Of the fact and
takes out warrant for c. who is arrested and imprisoned
in consequence thereof. prays habeas corpus and
shows that he the sheriff of the county, and hanged
in pursuance of legal warrant If court could not
discharge prisoner in such case because the warrant
was regular its face the writ of habeas corpus Of
little Every arrest of the person is an assault and
battery and attended with force and violence against
resisting party and made by three or more persons is
riot provided the fact be concealed that it was made in
execution Of legal warrant.
The authority conferred the judges of the United
States by this act of Congress gives them all the power
that any other court could exercise under the writ OF
Ihabeas corpus gives them at ALL If under such
writ they may not discharge their officer when mprs
oned by any authority for act done in pursuance oil
law Of the United Sates it would be impossible to dis
coyer for what useful purpose the act was passed
the prisoner be brought before them only that they
nav acknowledge their utter impotence to protect him
This act passed when certain State OF this Union
had nuy acts of Congress- and to treat
those criminals who should attempt to execute them
and was intended remedy against such State legs
aon If the State of Pennsylvania had by act of Legis-
aure declared that the fugitive law should not be exc
cuted within her borders and had directed her officers to
and mprson those Of the United States who should
attempt execute it. would not this court have been
bound to treat such act unconstitutional and void and
discharge their officers from Imprisonment underit! And
have they power to do so, when mischievous inter
medders endeayor prevent and abuse State
the same purpose? IL the Marshal aud his officers may
be serving Why not the Commission
ier AID J1<xxNho issued tbs psoceGs? The extremes
advocate az Sfater;ghts would scarcely
such cases the courts of the United States should d
wholly unable protect themselves or their officers lie
us look at the consequences. "ne the MarsnaI ON
GERS in this case endeayorng TO retake the prisoner
who had escaped from them, the person who afterwards
swore the information on which this warrant was IS
sued had 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 suppose the Marshals oih
GERS had succeeded in making the arrest and the Sheriff
had attempted to execute the process what would nave
been the consequence?
If the Marshal rcssts contest ensues, which may be
called in fact war between officers each acting and
usyng 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. II such state OF Of
fairs be brought about at the instance OF any mis-
chievous unprncped person, who is willing to swear
without scruple that which he does not know to be
true perhaps knows to be false then indeed has beer
discovered safe mode of nufying the constitution anC
laws Of the United States Those who celebrate the an
nversaries Of the Syracuse riots and Of the Christians
murder may well rejoice at the discovery.
Not believing that the courts of the United States have
been left in this helpless condition, that we are re
quired and authorized to Issue habeas corpus without
any power to release the prisoners if unusty detained
the objection to the jurisdiction and power Of the cour
overrued and the further hearing of the post
poned till the 18th Of October in order that proof nigh
be made Of the facts stated in the petition and that tn
State Of Pennsylvania through her known officers nigh
appear, If she fit and show any just cause Of com
9 plant against the officers now in arrest.
On that day the learned gentlemen who had mp
on tha rupr me
posed to take part in the proceeding They were re
quesed to state whom they represented and to shoy
their authority IL they had any, to intervene on behalf
the State Of Pennsylvania 1t answered that the.
had been employed by the constable who made the ar
rest To which il replied by the Court that thei
duty to their client ended when they had made out hi
return the writ Of habeas corpus that the constable
had concern with the result Of this proceeding
than any other citizen that the United States Govern
ment has appeared by its proper representative in dc
fence of its officers; and if the Commonwealth of Penn
syyania by any officer entitled to represent her. ayow
this proceeding and complains that her laws have beer
ransgressed by the prisoners, they should De heard
! that if the gentlemen had any authority from tn,
Governor Attorney General Of Pennsylvania from
the Prosecuting Attorney Of Luzerne county they shouC
heard But as the Court had to believe tina
any Of those officers had shown would show the eas
TO such proceedings, and the person whC
had right to complain the injured party f any ont
had has confessed the justice Of his arrest by fleeing th'
country we would not permit volunteers to inter
fere for the purpose of embrong the State Of Pennsy
vana against her will with the United States that
society OF persons however respectable should
to be the guardians Of her peace and dignity.
Evidence then received to show that the prisoners
we're deputies of the marshall that lawful was
pu into their hands commanding them arrest VIM
Thomas fugitive from labor; that in pursuance Of this
warrant they arrested said fugitve that he resisted