Mineral Point tribune. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1854-1858, 1855-02-14

CpHtdsuSA III WARRANT sci iOftt III
indictment, had that a complaint had been
made before Judge Miller, by a person claiming
that said Glover owed service and labor to him,
the claimant, according to the laws Of the State
of Missouri and that upon that complaint the
warrant had issued against Glover as fugitive
slave.
The third count is substantially the same as
the second, the principal difference being. that it
recites the affidavit of the claimant as well as
the warrant issued by the district Judge
The intention, doubt, was TO set forth iE
each of these counts, offence, within the seventh
section Of the act of 1850, but in my view of
them; they merely charge an aiding, a5etting and
assisting person 7Gmed Giorey 10 escape from TIE
clsstofy Of Nh Cotton, a deputy Of The Marshal Of
he United States. Who Is this Glover thus aided
OF, in other words, from the averrnents and find
ing Of the grand jury, set forth in three counts
and not from the rectas OF the affidavit and war
rant therein, what is the Kind Of person alleged
to have bean aided For If it be not shown that
he Is within the description of person. the aiding
in the escape of whom is declared 10 be an OF
fence. then so far as the act Of 1850 is concerned
these counts charge no offence.
The seventh section provides for the punish
nent OF any person, who shall KNOWN civ and y H.
fully aid abet and assist such person so otgiHg
serrice and labor, aforesaid, directly or indirect
IL. TO escape. &c
Now 1t is not the aiding any person to escape
which is here provided for, but il IS the aiding Of
person OF specified stairs or condition 10 wit
one who owes service or labor as Aforesaid and
these words must erdeuily refer back to the com
pnencement of the sixth section, where we find
the person described as one held to service or
labor in any State Territory of the United
States This is the only reasonable construc-
ton which can place upon the language of this
section, for certainly the assisting Of person not
owing service or labor il any STATE Territory
would not come within this section. Suppose
person. undoubtedly freeman, were in custody
on claim under tins law, and without the use Of
any force or violence he was assisted to escape
how could it be said that the aid had been rem
dered to person "a so o,elHg set1ce and tabor -
TO constitute offence under tbs, as under any
statute, every circumstance necessary TO an
exact description Of the offence as defined by the
statute must be critically set forth, and the appl
cation Of this rule to the counts of this Indictment
would require that the man Glover should have
been described as person owing service or labor
IN some state OF Ierr'oFy. BY no principle of
law can we infer, from the words used in these
counts, that Glover owed service or labor-on the
contrary we bound to suppose that Joshua
Glover was equally free as any other person
If he had been in the custody Of the officer, Ter
the violation of some other law of Congress than
the act Of $50. the aiding him to escape would
not be offence within that act But from the le-
climate averments OF these counts cannot find
- - IL ,,r,.a 80 ,Iia
= :. a;ol .i-' 'tlai se'
from the custody of the deputy marshal Cotton,
which custody was by virtue OF process.
The twenty second section Of an Act Of Con
fence Of r@s;ei,o or oEsy,,c,ig y F.ers III H.,
+s4 c.+as - - sar;r . rrosr IT. Ia
(,,,s,o r i oI,S.ri,c+ $3.50
ann, oficer or the United Sfates IN eary;es, 81
ta,3,,lti 70 ser,a e,ec,te any, 15c's rl.as
or L,.a,T,nts or ar,,, r,,Ia ar orfor &c - e H.
C'cr,,ts - t[7e T-ri.eJ Ita+ss Sc e. NV
The distinction IN mr., i45oroen+ ba.r,as, tba
;,,rro,I;o,g or tho ,fisrca If ,isl,.,:,r -
- r. =, ~ $50
- a.. - 'loe'S u,i,'eI
,d aS =, 80 a .+ -l - 80 III o. s,.i, .t',
+ba,arro, RI - a 1,,ta- Ia -a,,l-, I'll -, s,
an ofT;.rce CONSISTS in ,bis 49,, in liz So
scr7c 7C,jye 5.srtcrg-,rc IF he rorsor cI.e5 =
r,eo,s.,rif, =. fr,-,f,.el ,,.I.,Ili H. I.+ a. -
,I.;g,t ma. l.a sf-a;re4 10 IA arJ ,ss;.,-s
f,tled ,gi;lol,. a9y cenrec,ior ,1i,I ~ -
49,, lr 10 of..o, -, ~ -, -. :;
,,ose;,, Is,,s,tE ia ,,.;,,, :, = . -, i .,.,;I
,il- :; ,fIel =; - - - ~,
might cast a kew through The ooen bars or c9er
meut, and thereby enable the captive to with
draw the bolts Of his prison and escane but al
though this would be a grave fence. anprahend
it could not bring The offender within he act Of
1890. Il would be an aiding and abetting in an
escape but II could hardly be deemed an obstrut-
ing hindeFing the officer in the service or exc
cution of process.
The indictment preferred against the raIator
however. contained one count (the frstl which
charged an offence within the jurisdiction Of the
district court, and the question hether inasnaucl
as that court had jurisdiction to try tie offence
charged in the first count, in the Indictment il
did not thereby acquire a control of the whole
case and preclude any inquiry into its power
here has engaged my attention
am not. upon this writ of haJeas corpus IN
curing into mere question of criminal plead
Ihgs-the enquiry IS one affecting the jurisdiction
and power OF the court which entertained the in
alctment before ns, and proceeded 10 verdict and
judgment thereon
am entirety satisfied, that, II the curry had
returned a general verdict on this indictment, the
interference of This court with the sentence OF the
District Court of he United States would have
been wholly understandable; because in tina; case.
there would have been a conviction for an offence
within the power OF the District Court TO try de-
termine and punish But the record which con-