Mineral Point tribune. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1854-1858, 1854-08-02
HlBEiS CORPUS CASE.
Opinion delivered By Chief Justice Wilton.


1t is further objected to the return of
| the Marshal. that. admitting Glover to
have been arrested as fugitive from la
/ bor, under the act Of congress. approved
September 18th, 1850. still. his arrest
was unlawful for the reason that the act
Is repugnant to the constitution Of the
United States. and therefore void And
1T Is contended by the relator. that it can
be no crime to abet OF assist a person to
escape from illegal Imprisonment. The
principal reasons urged in favor of this
position OF the relator, are, that the con
stitutIon of the United States confers no
power upon congress to legislate upon the
subject Of the surrender Of fugitives from
/ iabor-that the act in question attempts
to confer Judicial power upon commission
ers, not upon courss and that by virtue
OF the act person may be deprived os
his liberty without due process of law ~
On the other hand il is contended hy
the plaintiff in error, that these questions
are not now open for discussion. as they
have all been settled by the Supreme
Court Of the L States and as that
court is the only one which can, which
has the power to settle finally the CUES
ton of constitutionality of an act of con-
grcss, all other courts are bound to ac
quiesce in their decision 1t is not, of
course, claimed by the plaintiff in error,
that the act of congress IN question has
been before that court for consideration
but 1t Is contended. that an act passed by
congress Feb 18th, 1898, LIST u. S. Stat
at large, 302) contains provisions not dis
tlngulshable in principle from those of
the act of Sept. 18th, 1850, and that. that
court has decided this act to be valid and
obligatory We do not understand that
the two acts are in all respects alike in
principle, or even similar The act of
1898 provides for the surrender of fugi-
tives from justice, and also fugitives from
labor, and so far as it relates to the latter
description of persons, it is similar to the
act of 1850 But the two acts differ es
sentally in the manner in which the sur
render is to be effected BY the former
the person to whom the service or labor
was due, was authorized to seize or arrest
the fugitive, and to take him before any
judge of the circuit or district court of
the United States, residing or being with
IN the State or before any magistrate of
county, city, or town corporate, wherein
such seizure or arrest was made, and up
on proof to the satisfaction of such Judge
or magistrate, either by oral testimony or
affidavit taken and certified by magis
tratc of any such State or Territory, that
the person so seized owed service or labor
under the laws Of the State to the claim
ant, it became the duty of the Judge or
magistrate to give a certificate thereof to
the claimant his agent or attorney which
was sufficient warrant for the removal of
the fugitive to the State or Territory
from which he escaped It will be OBJ
served that the alleged fugitive was to be
taken before some Judge of the circuit or
district court of the United States. or be
fore some State magistrate, who decided
upon the question of the surrender of the
fugitive to the claimant, upon proof to be
submitted to him. He had the power to
weigh the testimony and to decide upon
its sufficiercy, The act of Sept. 18th,
1850, differs from that of 1893 in two es-
sental particulars BY the former, GER
tain officers, called commissioners, are au-
thOrlzed TO make tue surrender and give
the certificate, aud the testimony to show
the fact that the alleged fugitive owes
service or labor and that he has escaped.
is not to be weighed by the commissioner,
but has an effect given to it by the act
Independent entirely Of the opinion of
the commissioner in regard to its sufficien
cy. The 10th section of the act provides,
tina when any person held to service or
labor in any State or Territory, or in the
District of Columbia, shall escape there
from, the party to whom such labor or
service shall be due, or his agent or attor-
ney, may apply to any court of record
therein, or judge thereof in vacation, and
make satisfactory proof to such court, or
judge IN vacation, of the escape aforesaid
and that the person escaping owed service
or labor to such party. Whereupon the
court shall cause a record to be made of
the matter so proved. and also a general
description of tie person so escaping,
with such convenient certainty as may be /;
and 4 transcript of such cord authenti-
Gated by the attestation Of the clerk and
of the seal of said court, being produced
in any other State, Territory or District.
in which the person so escaping may be
found. and being exhibited to any judge.
commissioner, or other officer authorized
sons escaping from service or la Dor to be
delivered up, shall be held and taken to
be full and conclusive evidence of the fact
of escape. and that the service or labor of
the person escaping is due to the party in
such record mentioned.
1t can hardly be claimed, we think, that
any adjudication upon the act of 1898
could decide all the questions involved in
the act of 1850 But we will examine the
cases referred to by the counsel for the
plaintiff in error. upon this point The
act of 1898 received very elaborate ex
animation in the case of Prigg VS.. Com
monwealth of Pennsylvania, 9th Peter,
r 640}. The question, however, involv-
ed in the record before the court, was sim
ply whether Prigg, the plaintiff, had the
right 10 seize, without process, in the
State of Pennsylvania, Margaret Morgan,
fugitive slave. aud remand her to the
State of Maryland from which she had
escaped. to the statute of the former State.