Washington sentinel., 1853-10-18
From the philadephia Evening Bulletin]
THE WILKEsBARRE SLAVE CASE.
JUDGE cRlER's OPINION.

Elk Parte John jenkins and James Crozier-
In the circuit court of the United States for the
eastern district of Pennsylvania.
AS all cases involving questions concerning
the jurisdiction and powers of the courts Of the
United States, and those of the several States,
especially if they have any connection with the
act of Congress, concerning fugitives from
justice and persons escaping from the service
OF their masters" excite much public attention,
and seem peculiarly liable to Misrepresentation
| from the garbled statements of those who un-
dertake to report them have concluded to
reduce to writing the opinions l. entertain in
| this case.
Our very peculiar institutions, which require
of every citizen double allegiance and obe-
dience to two distinct sovereigns, with inde-
pendent Judiciary systems emanating from each,
make it especially necessary that great caution
and prudence be exercised by their respective
tribunals, in order to avoid any collision or con-
ict in the exercise Of their respective jurisdic-
| ton over the same subjects and persons. That
there should be great diversity of opinion as to
the limits of the power of either sovereign and
its courts, may naturally be expected. But
without adopting the political opinions of ex-
tremists either side, it is the duty Of courts,
in order to have no unpleasant collision, to
carefully avoid the assumption of powers not
plainly confided to them, and, at the same time,
to perform the duties imposed upon them with
frmness and resolution, disregarding the clamor
or the contumely of heated partizans.
The jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States is limited, but within its limits supreme.
The State courts have often, in many cases, a
concurrent jurisdiction over the same subjects
and persons. But neither can treat the other
as an inferior jurisdiction, except in the cases
where the Constitution and acts of Congress
| have given such power to the courts of the
Union. Where persons or property are liable
to seizure or arrest by the process of both, that
which first attached should have the prefer
ence. Any attempt of either to take them from
the legal custody of the officers Of the other,
| would be an unjustifable exercise of its power,
and lead to most deplorable consequences
Therefore, if person be imprisoned under the
civil or criminal proofs Of one, the other cannot
take him from such custody in order to subject
him to punishment for an offence against them.
A fugitive cannot be taken from the legal Gus.
tody of the sheriff by any warrant from the
courts Of the United States, in order to extra
dition, under the acts of Congress. Neither
can such fugitive, when in custody of the mar
shal, under legal process from Judge or COM
missioner of the United States, be delivered
from such custody by means of habeds corpus
or any other proofs, to answer for an offence
against the State, whether felony or misde-
meanor, or for any other purpose.
While the act Of Congress does not forbid the
issuing Of habeas corpus by State Judge, it
carefully guards against the abuse of it, and
makes certificate of commissioner or Judge
of the United States conclusive evidence Of
the right of the person or persons in whose
| favor it is granted, to remove such fugitive
and forbids "all molestation of such person or
persons by any process issued by any court,
| Judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever."
This act of Congress is the supreme law of the
| land, and binding on the conscience of State
judges as well as those of the United States.
Judges of the United States, as well as Of State
courts, are therefore bound to dismiss writ of
habeas corpus, or to refuse to allow it whenever
they are properly informed that the prisoner is
held by legal process under this act, and not to
suffer it to be abused by mischievous intermed-
dlers for the purpose of "molestation" of the
officer or owner of the fugitive in efecting 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
a concurrent jurisdiction in similar cases. But
State courts or judges have no power under a
habeas corpus to review or sit in error upon
the judgments or process of the judicial officers
of the United States acting within the iurisdic-
ton committed to them, as has sometimes been
done. have known of one instance land
heard of others) where fugitive legally in
custody has been discharged on habeas corpus,
under pretence or affectation of judicial igno-
rance that slavery existed in Virginia. Such
an abuse of judicial discretion was held to be no
Il ~ IL
fugitive by means of it. Whether such an ille-
the high penalty inflicted on him for permitting
an escape may well be doubted; and if he
should resist it, as possibly he would, it would
lead to a very unpleasant conflict, which every
good citizen should be careful to prevent.
have made these remarks, as preliminary
to entering upon the question now before us,
in order to rectify misapprehension and gross
misapplication of those made on a former oc-
casion, and also that persons whose zeal in
favor of fugitives is sometimes permitted so far
to outrun their discretion may be aware Of the
mischievous consequences, both to themselves
and others, which are likely to ensue from at
tempts thus to abuse the process of State courts
and bring them into conflict with those Of the
United States.
The prisoners, John jenkins and James
Crozier, have been brought before the court
by virtue of a writ of habeas corpus issued and
allowed by me on the 4th of October, and d.
rected to J. B. Chollet. The petition for this
writ sets forth that the petitioners are deputies
of the marshal Of the United States for this
district; that warrant was placed in their
hands by said marshal, issued by E. ID. Ingra-
ham, ESQ.,, commissioner, and endorsed by a
judge Of the Supreme Court directing them to
arrest a negro named William Thomas, who,
being held to labor and service in the State of
Virginia, and owing the same to certain
Isham Keith, Of Fauquier county, Virginia, had
escaped therefrom into the State of Pennsylva-
mia; that they proceeded to Wilkesbarre, Luz
zerne county, Pennsylvania, where the fugitive
was found; that they attempted to arrest him,
in obedience to said warrant; that the arrest
was resisted with great violence, and, after a
severe struggle, the fugitive succeeded in es-
Gaping. They complain that they have been
arrested and imprisoned, under color of war
rant from justice of the peace of Luzerne
county, charging them with an assault and bat