Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1855-08-25

and meaning of the Constitution of the United
States, but is subject to the laws of the State INTO
which he has been thus carried, and that by the
law of Pennsylvania n slave so brought into tins
State, whether for the purpose of passing through
the same or otherwise, is free.
3. That the District Court of the U. ). has no
jurisdiction whatever over the question OF the
freedom or slavery of such person, or Of an alleged
abduction of him, nor any jurisdiction to award a
Writ of TIabeas Coz pus commanding an alleged
abductor or any citizen by whom he may be as
sumed to be detained to produce him.
10. That in case of a fugitive from service or
labor from another State, the District Court of the
U. S. has jurisdiction to issue u warrant for the
apprehension of such fugitive, and in case he be
rescued and abducted from his claimant, to pro-
coed by indictment and trial by jury, against such
abductor, and on conviction, to punish him by
limited fine and imprisonment; but even in the
case of a fugitive slave, said Court nor the Judge
thereof, has no jurisdiction to issue n writ OF Ha-
bcas Corpus, commanding the alleged abductor to
produce such fugitive; or to enforce u return OF
such writ, or allow a traverse of the return there
of if made, or upon such traverse in effect, convict
the respondent without indictment or trial by jury
of such abduction, and thoreupon punish him
therefore by unlimited imprisonment in the name
OF a commitment as for a contempt in refusing to
return such writ of habeas Corpus.
III. That generally it is true that one Court viii
not go behind a commitment by another Court
for contempt; but that is only whore the commit
ting court has jurisdiction Of the subject matter;
and your petitioner submits that when the circum-
stances of the supposed contempt are set forth up
on the record of commitment, and it further ap
pears thereupon that the whole proceedings we're
cOrdm JUDGE, and that for that and other reasons
the commitment was arbitrary, illegal and void,-
it is the right and duty Of a Court of COMPETENT
jurisdiction by writ of IIabeas Corpus to relieve a
citizen from imprisonment under such void COM
mitment.
II. That neither the District Court of the U. S.
nor the Judge thereof had any shadow or color of
jurisdiction to award the writ of IIabeas Corpus
directed to your petitioner. commanding him to
produce the bodies of Jane, Daniel and Isaiah,
and that such writ was void; that your petitione.
was in no wise bound to make return thereto; that
the return which he did make thereto was uneva-
sive, full and com plete, and was conclusive and
NOT traversable; that the commitment of your Pc
titioner as for a contempt in refusing to return said
writ is as arbitrary, illegal and utterly null and
void that the whole proceedings including the COM
mitment for contempt, were absolutely coram non
judice.
ID. That in such oppression of one of her citi-
zens a subordinate Judge of the U. S. has usurp-
ed upon the authority, violated the peace and de-
rogated from the sovereign dignity of the Com
of Pennsylvania; that all are hurt in
the person of your petitioner, and that he is JUS
titled in looking with confidence to the authorities
of his native State to vindicate her rights, by re-
storing his liberty.
To be relieved therefore from the Imprisonment
aforesaid your petitioner now applies, praying that
n writ OF ha5eas Corpus may be issued according
to the act of Assembly in such case made and pro-
ylded, directed to Charles Hortz, the said keeper
Of said prison, commanding him to bring before
your Honorable Court the body of your petitioner,
to do and abide such order as your Honorable
Court may direct.