M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1855-04-27

tuition.
The second section Of the second arti-
Gle of tie Constitution prov ides, "tsat
Congress may by law vest the appoint
menl Of such inferior officers as they
-, think proper, in the President alone, in
the courts orlaw, or in the heads Of de-
partments." IS,
BY the Fugitive Act Of 1850, The Com
missioners appointed BY the Circuit
Courts Of the United States have concur
rent jurisdiction with the Judges of the
Circuit and District Courts of The Uni
ted States. &c.
These Commissioners were appointed
ander the act Of 1912; and under that aet
they had Powerto ISSUE wssrants 20 AZ y
rest persons who had committed oiTsn-
ces under the law of the United States
aud, on hearing, commit them, hold
them to bail to answer. or to discharge
them, as in their judgmen; the Law re-
qured. i.,.
The nature Of the duties Of the Com
missioners under the act of 1880 are not
IN principle, different from those which
they previously discharged. The inqui-
ry OF d Commissioner or a Judge under
the Fugitive Act is not STRICTLY wheih,
er the person is free, but whether
he owes service to the claimant In
its results, this inquiry may involve the
liberty of the fugitive; but the princiPle
applies to an apprentice as we'll as to
slave. ,..s
1t must be admitted that this inquiry
is some " hat in the nature of judicial
power; but the same remark applies to
the accounting departments of the Gov
ernment. They investigate claims, and
decide on the evidence. The exami-
ners in the Patent Office determine on
the merits AID novelty o. inventions
This becomes a judiciul duty in every
suit between conflicting patents.
It's impracticable, in carrying on the
machinery of government, TO prescribe
precise limits to the exercise of eyecl.
live and judicial powers. Congress
acts, in nature Of judicial power, in de-
Gliding upon claims. The Supreme
Court has had the acts of these Commis-
sioners before it. and has always treated
them as having authority under the law.
Two grounds are urged by counsel as
sustaining the jurisdiction of the STATE
Judge.
Tha; before the fugitive was ares.
ted BY the Marshal she was declared to
be free BY the Probate Judge,
q That the warrant was defective in
not stating that the girl escaped from
the Stats in which she was held as
slave.
! 1t must he admitted shat the aulhori
ties are not uniform on the point wheth-
er the decision on habeas cOpHs is f.
nal. This may be said of the authof.
lies IN this country and ia England. I
have been myself inclined 10 think such
a decision should be considered final,
where there was clearly jurisdiction and
i full and fair hearings but That it might
not be so considered when any of hess
requisites were wanting, or when new
and important evidence could be Obtain
ed. Some years since, was consulted
by Commissioner on the propristy.
a lier a hearing of giving time to obtain
new evidence. Several unimpeached wit
nesses swore positively to the identity of
the fugitive advised that time sho'd be
given, and eventually il was Sat!sfattJri-
y shown that ;he first witnesses were
mistaken, and that the fugitive was liv-
ing in Canada. This discharged him
from custody.
1t would be difficult to find any pro-
vision in the act of 1850 under whichs
State Judge can exercise jurisdiction
The act is special and stringent. Off
GERS are named IN the statute whose du.
tyi is to act when cases are brought be-
fore them. There is no reference to
State authorities believe, either direct
ly or indirectly. There is no law III
Ohio which authorizes State JSdges 10
act, tits true that the act Of 1893 did
authoTi1e State Magistrates to exercise
Jurisdiction under it, and that act has
only been repealed so far as repugnant
provisions are contained in the Rct OF
1850.
/ But it is not necessary to the decis.
4Oh VI VIC SdSS III uduU w HOlu tidb tuo
decision of the Probate Judge was not
, final; nor is it necessary to show that
the warrent had no defects. 1t may be
admitted that the first decision on tho
habeas corpus was bar 10 inquiry be-
fore the Commissioner, and that the
warrent was defective, but can a State
Judge take jurisdiction 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 Commissioners, he coulG
have considered them. In regard to
the warrant, he could have alnended it,
if necessary. BUTT would not have
been necessary. The fugitive being in
the custody of the Marshal, with the
consent and at the request Of the mas
Ter, she was lawfully held for the. ,pu;.
pose of inquiry. And as to the decis.
ion oil the Probate Court, whether it
constituted bar to the proceedings, it
was matter for the decision Of the
Commissioner. s.
think these grounds are unprecedea.
ted in judicial proceedings, except, per-
haps, in the decision of tue Supreme
Court in Wisconsin. That Court sat as
a Court of Errors on the proceedings Of
the District Court of the United States;
That case, observed, received high