Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1855-04-12

2 had power to issue warrants, to arrest person
|, who had committed ofenses under the Law
r of the United States, and on hearing commi
, them, hold them to bail to answer or to dis
charge them, as in their judgment the law re-
: quired.
Ehe nature of the duties of the Commits
sioners under the act of 1850 are not in prin.
! cipie, different from those which they pre-
yiously discharged. The inquiry of Com
missioner OF a Judge under the fugitive act
is not strictly whether the person is free, but
whether he owes service tO the claimant in
its results, this inquiry may involve the liber-
ty of the fugitive but the principle applies
to an apprentice as we'll as to slave.
1t must be admitted that this inquiry is
somewhat in the nature Of judicial power;
but the same remark applies to al the officers
of the accounting Departments of the govern
mont They investigate claims, and decide
on the evidence The examiners in the Pat
ent Office determine on the merits and novel
ty of inventions This becomes judicial
duty in every suit between conflicting pat
entS.
1t impracticable in carrying on the ma
chinery of government, to prescribe precise
limits to the exercise of executive and Judi
cial power, in deciding upon claims. The
! Supreme Court has had the acts of these
c5z- Ess,sfosS sas..i. <F>1<<
ed than as having authority under the law.
Two grounds are urged by counsel, as sus-
tanning the jurisdiction of the State Judge
l. That before the fugitive was arrested by
the Marshal, she was declared to be free by
the Probie Court.
2 That the warrant was defective in not
stating that the girl escaped from the State. in
which she was held as slave.
Itmust be admitted that the authorities are
not uniform on the point whether the deci-
sion on hdJeas corpus is final This may be
said of the authorities in this country and in
England / have been myself inclined to
think such a decision should be considered
final, where there was clearly jurisdiction and
full and fair hearing. But that it might not
be so 50 considered, when any of these requi-
sites were wanting; or when new and impor-
tant evidence could be obtained. Some years
since | was consulted ly a Commissioner on
the propriety, after hearing, of giving time
to obtain new evidence. Several unimpeach-
ed witnesses swore positively to the identity
of the fugitive. / advised that time should
be given, and eventually it was satisfactorily
shown that the first witnesses were mistaken,
and that the fugitive was living in Canada.
This discharged him from custody
1t would be difficult TO find any provision
in the act of 1850 under which State Judge
can exercise jurisdiction. The act is special
and stringent. Officers are named in the stat
ute whose duty it is to act when cases are
brought before them. There is no reference
to State authorities, believe, either directly
or indirectly. There is no law in Ohio which
authorizes State Judges to act 1t is true that
the act of 1898 did authorize State Magis-
trates 10 exercise Jurisdiction under it, and
that act has only been repealed so far as re-
pugnant provisions are contained in the act of
1850.
But it is not necessary TO the decision of the
case in hand 70 hold that the decision of the
Probate Judge was not final ; nor is it neces-
sary to show that the warrant had no defects.
1t may be admitted that the first decision on
the habeas corpus was bar to inquiry before
the Commissioner, and that the warrant was
defective, but can State Judge take jurisdic-
ton on these grounds 1t is the exercise of
an appellate power which is not given by the
laws of the United States or the laws Of the
State Suppose these objections had been
made before the Commissioner, he could have
considered them In regard TO the warrant,
he could have amended it, if necessary. But
it would not have been necessary. The fugi-
tive being in the custody of the Marshal, with
the consent and at the request of the master,
she was lawfully held for the purpose of the
inquiry. And as to the decision Of the Pro-
bate Court, whether it constituted bar to the
proceedings, it was matter for the decision
of the Commissioner
think these grounds are unprecedented in
judicial proceedings, except, perhaps, in the
decision of the Supreme Court in Wisconsin.
That Court sat rs Court of Errors on the
proceedings of the District Court of the Ur-l
ted States. That case, observed, received
high commendation in the arguplent before
the State Judge; but as il may some before
the Supreme Court for revision, it is not fit
that should speak of it in regard TO the fed
eral powers. will, however refer 10 the re-
vised statutes of Wisconsin, page 100; sec.
%, which authorizes the prisons of the State
to be used by the United States, and the Sher-
iff and his deputies are required 10 keep the
prisoners safely 'until they be discharged by
due course of the laws of the United States"
Ii must be recollected that when the habeas
swpus was served upon the Marshal, the case
before the Commissioner was in progress, and
near its termination. Is there any precedent
for such a procedure If the State Court
had concurrent power, the proceeding would
have been irregular and void. Under the
same government / could not have interposed.
But that a Court of a different government
could not interpose in this form, is sanctioned
by no law or precsdent Before the Supreme
Court of Wisconsin reversed, as a Court of
Errors the decision of the District Court, it
had the grace to wait until that Court had
finally decided.
Ii is not unusual in legal proceedings to
plead a former recovery or formal acquittal.
Can any Court interfere in such cases, and
take the case from the court in which the ju-
risdicton is vested If the Commissioner
did wrong, does that authorize the State
Judge to interpose by writ of habeas corpus,
and withdraw the case from the federal juris-
dction
1t is a general principal of law, to which 1
know of no exception, that the laws of every
government shall be construed by itself; and
such constructions is acted upon by the judi
ciary of all other countries. -------'
By the Federal Constitution, "the judicial
power of the United States is declared TO be
vested in one Supreme Court, and in such u
ferior courts as the Congress may from tipse to
time ordain and establish" Under this pro-
vision the Judiciary Of the Union gives con-
struction to the laws, which is obligatory on
the State tribunals. The Constitution again
declares that the Constitution and laws Of
the United States, which shall be made in
pursuance thereof, aud all treaties made, or
which shall be made under the authority of
the United States, shall be the supreme law
of the land and the judges in every State
shall be bound thereby, anything in the con-
stitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding"
The construction of the statutes Ofthe differ.
ent States, except where the Supreme Court
Of the Union exercise an appellate power,
has uniformly been followed by the Courts
of the United States This has been carried
so far, by the Supreme Court, as 10 reverse
its own decisions, to conform to change in
| tha decision of tho State Court and tbis ,,-ae