Mineral Point tribune. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1854-1858, 1854-08-02

uau the power majority holding that
the power was exclusive. and that the
State could not pass laws even in aid Of
the legislation of congress. In the course
of this discussion, nothing was said in
relation to the powers of commissioners.
for those officers did not exist at the
time when the act of congress was passed.
nor of the right of the alleged fugitive 10
a trial by jury. to decide the question of
fact upon which his surrender depends
In the case Of Jones KS Van Zandt 18th
! How X. 2l5) the act of 1893 came again
! before the court for it's consideration :
aud IN the course of the opinion given in
that case, the court says: This court
has already. after much deliberation de
c'ded hat the act of February 18th. 1898.
was not repugnant to the constitution
! The reasons for their opinion are fully
explained BY Justice Story, in Prigg vs
! Penn 10th Peters Gil" In the case Of
Moore rs Illinois, Oath How. r lS) the
court state what was decided in the case
of Prigg VS. Pennsylvania, ard among
the questions said to be decided in that
ease was this-~That the government is
clothed with appropriate authority and
functions TO enforce the delivery (of fuCi
/ w 81" 'N@J Oii N4d4iu Vi tuC ONISI, anu
has properly exercised it in the act of
congress of 18th February, 1882 These
are all the cases which we have been able
to find where the act of 1893 has come
before the supreme court of the T. S for
review, and III none of them is the question
OF the power of commissioners to give
the certificate to the claimant which au-
thorIzes the removal of the fugitive dis
cussed or decided
I These cases are equally silent upon the
Question IA most important one raised in
this case as to the right Of person claim
ed as fugitive from labor, to have the
facts which must be proved before be can
be surrendered to the claimant, tried aid
decided by jury. 1t is true that the
act of 1898 provides for the surrender Of
the person claimed as a fugitive without
such trial and decision and it is said in
substance by the supreme court of the
\. 5 in the cases of Jones VS. Van Zandt,
and Moore VS.. Illinois, that the court did
decide In the case of Prigg VS. Penn
that the act of Feb, 18th, 1893 was con
stitutional. But upon looking at that
case we fnd that the question of trial
/ by jury to determine the facts of the case.
'NS NV iaiDNd W tht iSCbI u. anu Nd EOj
discussed by the court in giving its opin-
ion We think it would be most unjust
to that court to hold that it has decided
questions which its judges have not even
discussed, and which have not been before
it for adjudication.
/ We are of opinion therefore. that. what
ever may be the duty of this court in re-
lation to the question of the power of CON
gress to provide by law for the surrender
of fugitives from labor to the persons to
whom their labor is due, we are not at
/ liberty to consider the question of the
right of person claimed as fugitive to
a trial by jury before he can be surren-
dered or delivered up to the claimant. as
already settled by the court which has the
power finally to decide all questions grow
I ing out of an alleged violation of the
constitution Of the L. S, by an act of
/ congress We must consider the oues-
/ tion as IN open one.
1t becomes therefore our duty to decide
whether so much of the act of congress
of September 18th. 1850 as provides
that certain officers, called commissioners,
shall decide the questions of fact which
must be proved before the surrender of
the alleged fugitive can take place, is val
id and obligatory We think that we
are also called upon to decide whether
/ the proceedings provided for in the act
for establishing judicially the fact of the
escape of the alleged fugitive and the fact
that he owes service or labor, are in con
I formity with the constitution of the T. s
J These questions are most grave and i'm
/ portant we would that we could avoid
/ them, but they are forced upon US, aud
we are not at liberty to refuse to consid-
! er them.
We are of opinion that so much of the
act Of congress III question as refers to
the commissioners for decision the ques-
tions of fact which are to be established
| by evidence before the alleged fugitive can
be delivered up to the claimant. is repug-
nant to the constitution of the L S aud
therefore void for two reasons,-lst be
cause 1t attcmps to confer upon those Off
GERS judicial powers and I'd because it
Is denial Of the right Of the alleged fu-
gitive to have those questions tried aud
decided by a jury which. we think, is Civ
Ell him by the constitution Of the L S
We have referred to the case Of Martin
Us HuDtcus Lcssccs, Il Wheaton, p. 3Oj
and to art 3, see. /, of the constitution
of the L. S, to show that congress can
not vest any judicial power under the
constitution except in courts We are
aware that congress has established courts
IN the various territories. and has prcyi-
ded for the appointment of judges with
different tenure of Office from that fixed
by the constitution but the power to ap-
point these judges is supposed to be dc
rived from art. 4, sec 2, of the constitu-
ton, which provides that congress shall
have power to dispose Of. and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting
the territory or other property of the
United States"
But, however this may be, nc are not
aware that the authority to vest any por-
tion of the judicial power in any tribunals
created by itself except those mentioned
in section | of art of the constitution,
is claimed for congress by any one, save
in the single instance of judicial officers
for the Territories belonging to the l. S.