Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1854-06-19

We have already published telegraphic
despatch, announcing the decision of Judge
Smith of Wisconsin in the case of S. NJ. Booth.
The charge against Mr.. Booth, was that he
had aided in the rescue of a fugitive slave.
Being under arrest, he was brought before the
Supreme Court of Wisconsin, on a writ of
habeas corpus, where he was discharged by
Judge Smiths decision, of which the Milwau-
kee Sentinel gives the following summary -
His Honor first rectes the form of the
naittinaus from the commissioner, by which
the defendant was held III custody, giving the
fact of his surrender by his BAIL &c. In the
application for writ of habeas corpus, the
petitioner alleges that he is illegally held, be-
cause, LIST: the Act of 1850 is void; I'd, Con-
gress has no authority to punish the act Of
which he is charged; Sd, the Act of 1850 is
III violation of the ordinance Of 1887, in Wis
consln; 9th, that the warrant is defective in
describing Glover as property instead of
person held to SERVICE sc.
"The Judge thinks the petitioner to blame
in not having presented his petition before the
bench ofjustices Of the Supreme Court, which
he had two opportunities of doing. As the
petition was made to him, however, by citi-
zen of the State, he had no alternative but to
grant a hearing.
'tHe holds that no U. S. Commissioner
has right to imprison citizen of the State,
by any process which bars the State authori-
ties from inquiring into his proceedings, that
every citizen has right to try every enact
ment of the legislative power by the funda-
mental law of the land, and to resist uncon-
stitutional enactments, though he does the
latter at his peril.
cater examining at length the law of the
United States and the writ, his Honor con-
cludes that the latter is clearly defective, and
for that reason, if there We're no other, the Pc
titioner entitled to his discharge.
" He then proceeds to an examination of the
question of the constitutionality of the act of
1850, discussing the origin and history of leg
islation on the subject of persons held to la
Dor or service. He holds that this article was
merely compact by the contracting parties to
the Constitution, by which the free States
were to be bound to provide legislation under
due course of law, and, after examination of
facts, for the return of such persons but that
no power was conferred upon Congress to leg
isate upon the matter, and that it IS the duty
OF the States to provide such legislation That
the fact that Congress has no power to punish
State officers for refusing to provide such leg
islation, is proof that the matter remains in
form of a compact. That It is clear that Con-
gress cannot constitutionally act upon this sub
ject, while it is clear that the States cannot
pass laws discharging fugitives from service.
All such laws must be void.
THAT the Constitution contemplates an ex-
animation into the claim of the claimant of
the fugitive, to be made where he is, bv pre-
sumption, free, while the act of 1850 makes
the decision or warrant of judge or commits
sioner a Judgment, III fact, without trial OF ex-
animation. That in order to ascertain to whom
'such service or labor is DUE examinat on
and inquiry must be made. If service OF la
Dor is due, the fugitive must be given up but
the fact must be ascertailed. There is an is
sue of fact to be tried.
"The suit to try this fact is not suit in
equity or admiralty, aud must be at common
law; hence trial by jury is demanded prop
erly.
"The act of 1850 is unconstitutional, in that
1t violates the principle which torbids that
persons shall be depriN ed of liberty without
due process oflaw.' The summary proceed
inss under this act Of 1850 clearly violate the
provision