Mineral Point tribune. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1854-1858, 1855-03-28
JUDGE cRAwFoRD's POSITION.

1t might naturally be supposed, after as much
discussion as has already been had upon the Judi
cal question, and fter the publication OF the Opn
ions of all the Judges of our Supreme Court upon
the Booth case, in most of the papers in the State,
that the views of Judge Crawford are well under
stood by all and yet such has been the spIrI. OF
Misrepresentation manifested by some, that II may
not be amiss at this time TO refer TO Judge Craw-
ford's own language 10 ascertain his correct views
upon those important questions now agitaung the
public mind.
The statements of the Free Democrat, that Judge
Crawford is opposed to the liberties of the peo-
ple" and that there is need of hell if the
devil don't get all such men, pass over as too
ridiculous to deserve reply.
1t has been said by some papers, whose editors
appear to believe the statements, that Judge Craw-
ford denies the right of the writ of ha6eds corpus TO
our citizens. In contradiction of this statement
we might offer sufficient proc. IN the fact that IN
both instances in the Booth case, Judge Crawford
did consent TO the granting of such writ, and IN
both cases his decisions went to the Liberation OF
Mr. Booth But we will quote few passages
from the Opinions of Judge c. upon this question
In the Opinion on the first case ne says:
That either of the Justices of this Court has au-
thority TO grant the writ of habeas corpus, when
proper case for rhe issuing of the writ is laid
before him by petition, do not entertain any
doubt.
concur in the opinion that when writ of ha-
beqs corpus cum ed,ssa has been granted or allow
ed and issued directed to any person within the
territorial limits OF this State, enjoying the pro-
lection OF our constitution and laws, and amena-
Bile TO them the exigency of that writ must be
obeved and return to the writ enforced, whether
the person TO whom the writ has been directed be
the Marshal of the United States or not and the
reasons for this conclusion, as presented by the
Chief Justice. are entirely satisfactory TO me-
That the priceless benefits of freedom
should be surrounded by every safeguard and pro-
tected from encroachment or INVASION, every man
worthy to enjoy its blessings must admit, and IN
every relation of life they ought to contribute not
only to the preservation but to the extension OF
those blessings, but l fully sensible that the
duty OF judicial officer is TO expound the law, not
to make it, and TO observe the distinction between
the strict performance of what he may deem an
imperative official duty and the assertion OF his
rights and privileges a citizen in the advocacy
of measures which he may consider essential to
the welfare and happiness OF his country and his
fellow man.
In the Opinion of the Court (written by Judge
Crawford) in the last case before it, we find the
following:
The District Court of the United States for this
District, is court of special or limited iurisdc
ton II can take cognizance of offences punisha-
Die by the laws of the United States, and of such
offences it has exclusive jurisdiction; but it pos
sesses 10 power to take cognizance OF, or punish
offences against the laws of the State. OF these
latter the State III bunas have jurisdiction equal
" exclusive is the jurisdiction of the federal
courts offences provided for by the laws of
Congress.
Further on he says:
Whenever in a case like the present one, writ
Of habeas corpus issues directed federal Off
Ger, and he makes proper return setting forth
the cause or process by which the party is
strained of his liberty confined, conceive it TO
be the duty and within the legitimate power of
this court or the officer before whom the writ is
made returnable, to examine we'll the process
by which, the cause for which the party is
strained or imprisoned
The Constitution of this State, Tart. I, sec. 81
secures TO every person within the State the priv
ege OF the writ of habeas corpus, and the use of
that writ is adapted all of illegal restraint
or confinement. The JUSTICES Il this Court
well as judicial officers of the~SsAeei who vest
ed with the power of awarding this writ, would
be recreant to the duty imposed upon them, and
TO the trust reposed in them by the people, If in
any case of illegal restraint in which they have
power to act they hesitated to perform the
quifements of the Constitution and laws of the
State by using this writ as a means to see that
no person within the boundaries of this State shall
be deprived of his personal liberty without the
thoritv OF law. Ii this were not the utility of
the writ Of habeas corpus would not only be great
" invaded but in many instances it would become
name without substance
Such is the language of Judge Crawford, and
it is known to be by those who accuse him of en-
tertainng different views.
What Mr.. Coles views are upon these points,
we are unable 10 say, neither see that it
matters for If he is be elected for the purpose
of deciding particular question in a particular
way, it is not necessary that he have any views of
his own. The people who elect him are the Judges
of the law and novice in law can per form the
duties required of him well the most pro>
foand Jurist of the land.