New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-07-24


held Madison the first Monday Of july then mex
and that default Of the recognEance' me hAslA =
commanded 10 deliver petitioner 70 the common JAIL
/ Sc Toe wArau: reces that the petitioner bad been
charged on oath with having. the eleventh gay 81
March eilheen hundred and fifty four, az zoe ny %
Milwaukee IL the Couaty of Mlwaakee, N said county
"and District unlGwfgy aided assisted and abett-d
"peen nalsed joshua Glover held to service or labor
in the State of Missouri, under the law thereof and
beng the property ofore Belamn :. Garland AMI hav-
ing ESCAPED erefrom into The State Of Wisconsin, 10
"ecspe from q lawful custody Of Charles L Cotton
deputy # the Marsh 81 the United for the Ds-
OF Wsconsn the said Charles 4. Cotton having then
and there arreted taken custod the said oshua
Glover. by virtue warrant issued by the Judge II
che United States for said district pursuaat the pr
visions Of the act Of Congress that case made and pro-
vided approved September J.. ls-0.
In order show that the within the principle N
question II must appear that the District Conrt OF the
United States had the pending before = when was
made ~ the ssung and service Of the Aea' C0 ta"i
the question OF the imprisonment Of the petitioner was
then penong before that court AMI this the facts OF the
DO show. They merely show the ordinary cAse 81
person uprsoned under color Of legal process for an al
legged oiense H. such the investigation oi the le
gay Of his imprisonment does not necessarily involve
inquiry into the question Of the gnlt or innocence OF the
prisoner. of h liability TO be held TO answer Tor the
alleged CfeDse
TIus If the Imprisonment by virtue OF warrant
issued by State magistrate any officer ~ the safe au-
thOrized 10 the Srt OF h05ea' corpus may examine
into the OF the imprisonment and may discharge
the prisoner BIS giving bail for his appearance at the
IroIer Court to anew for the oeDse with which he
charged if bail has been required by the magistrate and
the CCfr who the writ 81 hdbfds should ne
Of opinion that the oense wa bahabe ~ the magis.
trs,e has authority mprson. So if the warrant OF
commitment should forth ofense, ana the commit
rnent should be. for that reason Irregular, unless proof
shoud be ofere ith the return of the show
the prisoner guilty Of no oense Rersef Statutes,
ch i24 sec b.. H. thee cases, aud many more which
iclt be put the question of the legality OF the mPrson
is investigated without casting Court Of any Jurs-
dictiou which has acquired Nor do think hat the
question changed by the fact hat the officer whoiSsu7d
the warrant by virtue OF which the petitioner i'm
rrisoned wa an officer of the United States. la many
cases the Courts and United States Court have con-
current jurisdiction. In the jurisdiction If the
State Courts exclusive And in that OF the United
States Courts excusive. When the jurisdiction Is
current the Court whose jurisdiction first attaches viii
retain the and the other Courts WI not interfere a.
in 10 other way conflict between the different Courts
he prevented and Of when Court has exclusive
jurisdiction, other Court an take jurisdiction
But if tie conclusions have arrived al are correct the
ivrisd elton Of Court is disturbed by issuing writ of
hae0s cftals and dischergng prisoner who has been
committed by an inferior magistrate for refusing pro
bail for hs appearance at Court 10 for al
legged oese when bail has been refused aud the prs
is held IL custody.
In Sims Gaze 7th Cush r. the Supreme Court of
Masac Objt elton, this account To lssu
ING wit Of haJcqs corpus bring before the Court
uri in the custody Of Marshal OF the United States
under warrant ifsued by Commissioner of the United
Staies though the Court refused the writ other
See also I'll CoWans X. AL; 10 Jobnson X. 1928
1t insisted by the counsel for the plaintiff in error,
tiat our statutes Rev. Stat chap Ia 2 n'erposed
on insurmouniabe objection to the jurisdiction of State
officer in case like the present., because provides that
tie ohicer shall, although the commitment be irregular,
remand prisoner custody, hold him to bal, If
a Iears from testimony offered with the return that he
has been guilty of oense. il such 1t is insisted
n nj the cer acts as an examining Magistrate an office
whose duties he discharge, if the oiense proved
one which the United States Courts have exclusive u
risdiction But think, that whatever difficulties this
section of the create to the posed conre
to be pursued by the officer in of that description,
IT Should NOT N CONSTRUED 80 As 10 DEPRIVE STATE
Court, OFFICER, or The POWER TO ISSUE the WRIT
IN ALL CAsEs WHERE CITIzES or rms STATE Is HELD
GROUND % ALLEGED VIOLATION
OF A LAW OF USiTED STATES. The same difficulty
voud present itself if State Magistrate, acting wholly
without authority should commit person to prison. for
r,sng give bail for his appearance at Court OF the
United States to answer to an oiense against the a" OF
the United States
There being no valid objection issuing the writ and
bringing the prisoner before the officer the question arises
whether the discharge Of the prisoner III accordance
with law Tie return the Marshal 10 the writ Of habeas
c7Iu sets out substantially the for the de-
teon Of the prisoner that stated in the petition for the
wit above given that there is necessity for re-
stng it. The first objection taken to the return IL that
it does forth valid reason. Upon this subject
we fully concur the opinion of the Justice of this Court
who discharged the prlsoner The warrant fails to state
anV oeuse under the act of Congress in question, mas
much as il does show for what purpose Joshua Glover
therein named, in the custody OF the Deputy OF the
Marshal He may have been i'll custody pursuant to the
Congress approved September Is, $50 aud not
have bee n arrested fugitive from labor The warrant
therefore that petitioner aided abeted
assisted person who arrested fugitive from
labor 10 escape from custody This Is essential IN order
constitute oiense against the act Of Congress.
that il is sufficient III warrant to state the OF
Tense wiihou; that particularly required in Indictment
but still there be- nj least general statement OF the
oflense IN order Ia justify the arrest
II Is further objected TO the return of the Marshal that
admitting Glover have been arrested as fugitive from
labor, under the act of Congress, approved September
L. 1850 still his unlawful for the reason that
the repugnant to the Constitution of the United
States ard therefore void And It is commended by the
reaOr that il he crime % abe or assist perion
to escspe from illegal mprson nent The principal reas-
ons urged favor Of this position of the reat'r that
the Constitution of the United States coners no power
upon Congress to legslate upon the subject OF the
rtncer of fugtives from ab0r-tha The in question
attempts TO confer judicial power upon Commissioners,
BOT upon Courts and that by virtue of the act person
may lie deprived of bis liberty without due process OF
" law"
On the other hand. il is cOntended by the plaintiff in
error that these questions not open for discussion
they have all been settled by the Supreme Court OF the
United States and as that Court the onl one which
can which has the power settle finally the question OF
the constuionsy of act of Congress all other Courts
are bound 10 aCquesce in their decision. IL Il not OF
course claimed by the plaintiff in error that the act OF
Congress in question has been before that jur for consd
Grafton but commended that act passed by Congress
Feb 10 1893 list L. = stat at large, 3O2 contains pro-
visions not distinguishing in principle from those OF me
act of Sept 1880 and that that Court has decided this
act TO be valid and obligatory. We do not understand
that The two acts in all respects alike IN principle, or
even similar The of 1898 provides for the surrender
OF fgiyrs from Justice and also fugiyes from labor anu
30 far as relates the latter description of persons It
similar 10 the act OF But the acts dler essen
tav in the manner which the surrender Is n be effected
By The former the person 20 whom the service or labor
was due was authorized To seize arrest the fugitive and
TO take him before any Judge Of the Circuit or District
Court of the United States residing or being within the
State before any magistrate oi county city or town
corporate wherein such seizure arrest was made ana
up0 proof 10 the satisfaction IF such Judge or magistrate,
ether bv oral testimony affidavit taken and certified by
magistrate Of any such State or Territory that the per-
son so seized owed service labor under the laws OF the
State to the claimant it became the duty Of the judge or
magistrate to give certificate thereof TO the claimant