New-York daily tribune., 1856-09-08

past depo-es. p-r,
oTbst | have read the affidavit of Lois H. brown
! 4 t ""' - uj tb. ahdn,i q - Gen. samuel 6
Pnfr,rov and that al. The facts tending Z" S"'" .i'
! unsa.rtJ of the said prs"heI- -: 20 t
Mplc.s hostility e. which my arc ',IF Er
a. ,I,,I. .r f, T. therein stated, are. believe. u.y
and ,,..~,ly 'ruc have had long ana lnnint'' 49,
cn.,tar,e " Tin the tate ofafur' ~ hA"-i-. snow
,i.t "A. rcople of tho Territory ar silJ'ct in fhe
i and han, endured al the cVl.~ dc-r. .nod ny NJ.
| tr.yu and Gen Pom,rov 10 ih'.f ail ,aNii- Aui
| li tI.r. +. no LEGAL power 10 tn Territory iii
cent to secure tie SAFETY of 'h' ~"nr'' i'"n i- ---
| .iuaiiop t. which iLoy are exposed AM winch h,-
icNt. a1 to some. u h'' al % "''' o. '''''''l "4i
| imminent {tr..
Toil. refusal 70 admit TO bail, the aii ayli OF NJ
Brown apples. which rcc.i"-:
..Tiet,ic afiani was present in Cour' h..orc julie
J.o.mpic Crcf Justice of tie sad Territory. all
Ic,rd nrpcato ON there made Toy the adm OF t.o
,nd lrsoi,r- to bail, and uat she offered to procIr.
! bail for tie appearance of tic sad Gcor-c " Brown
in any sum o money which 10 -i ho named; and that
! a1cr week delay for consideration. the saiI -t
justice dec ded tint hc had power adint tlo i
brown and others to bai. aid therefore III . ;Hc
spI cati"u. Ard This aiiiauf bou- ai -,i Ina .no
,lud-'s oi De Ngl Hno Count of fire United >,,ic-
have power to admit 10 bail AZ their d.s .s.roiou AL
! lc-1~ mlrson'd on charge of crime at1luf tNc
Ciied N,a''s doth hcrety aver Aor bcci that all tie
sad prisoners can furnish ample security for th.! az
pcarancc 20 answer. It admitted io bail.
tx application fox relic: By habea, corpus was
mace under the ia section of Tie "J44ic.aIy lief,
70 called, OF l;s9.
JoH> JoLFFF. esq, Of Cincinnati. and Ions !.
ANDnfw, c,I.. Of Boston appcarc! on b~i II o' the
| petitioner. /; Va- coniculcl 5y the .cHnc! council
| That a. it j. settled law hy tine decisions % t''
supreme Cou1. that tins Court 800 tho cA'rc.-' "i ii-
HII ollh.c Jurisdiction Over I.O m:.ror tui.d S.a'a
Cont has thc power io ISSUE Wrt- o habcs cprpl-.
| and as tie section quoted above prpypi's " lnt
" either ol the .Ju>t.cc- oi the supreme Court -l 10
have power To- giant wit of haoc.. corpus i'r iir
! "IurIo-, oi an inquiry into tir caus' Oi com ni.-
mcIt and tl' sd section OF 'hc san" net gives
power to any Justice OF the SIprcmc Court io admit
10 bail persons under indictment icr cspni oil -. cf"n
against tie United state. and tnc Supr' mo Coari
| . NOT now in s,ssor-tlat nuy Justice 0i iim' Court
has tie power to issue the WIN and mat VIII i.'i'I
IT W,ll run mo any ph1 oi the domiiona Oi Tire Ini'l
| States.
The relief sought was twoiold aud in the alternative
it was contoudcd:
l. That the parties might be diuiog'd bocau-o
they nrc held under commitment of am inferior C'nri
Of he I uicI State tui "u charge made
!. Is body purpor'ing Ia be- Grand jury, b g. I'D
fac 10 Grand jury, 20 tnW there T. n law, D." H-
| diem, nj. ana therefore no lawful commitment.
1hi- opens tfr whole question: whether th"r" lS any
h.0I org0nt-a'toH of th' Territory "i Kansas, bY H'
ItobL fh,ro0t under tc organic act oi Nay iNII; ar
ONLY The counsel aVcrI,d that they would PROVE
m,rc 0>yrJ0'0n by persons foreign 10 the Territory.
That The Territorial Courts have power To- inquire
whether there has been any such legal "rgmnznton.
necessarily prerequisite. ~ the foundation ul such pro-
c,cdh-s before those Courts IMPLY such orgaulla-
tom II believed to be- clear. That the supreme Court,
! in tie exercise e.; ITS appellate power. has the snn"
power, whenever the question arscs was urged by ihe
| counsel to be- cqually certain.
l. l. simply question whether there was u Gr0Hd
J4rY IA oo'd or only a delegation or detachment "i
mob Of invaders. And whcrcv the exclusive lur',-
dicon of the ntcd States does extend there also is
The jurisdiction of its Supreme Court, aud there tins
| high tribunal erected for the maintenance "i lndi-
vdual liberty and private right has the power to make
nQuisiton 10y The Of the great remedial process Of
Inv pftI * cha 'g- tlt
into the cause for which any citizen may be held N
rortrant
This view presents the case clearly q case for judi
cial inquiry Whatever mav bc tine powers, rights. "r
duties, of the Executive of the legislative branches
o the Government, the judiciary has IL own duties.
rights, and powers clearly marAcd II stands aS the
shield OF the citizen against oppressive aud unlawful
| power even against Congress and the Executive"
competent to- make any inquiry and to pursue any M
! vostgHtion needed within Whatever limits is Icrio-
rial jurisdiction embraces, 10 discover whether tnc
| power complained oi is or is not "A lawful power.
p Tie rcicf sought would cn;ilc the prisoners 10 Il
| discharge even if there had been invasion, bat
| real organization of The government, on the ground
that all the legislation clamcd IN Kansas was had al
place not permitted by the organic Act, and IN the alb
of the Governor m whom By the Act IS vested
the legislative power Of the Territory lomuy win
The Assembly.
l1hc report of the Congressional Committee of In
vcstigaOn applies here, and also the affidavit q" y H.
RccG,r, To his non-pmtcipation in the proceedings
OF the pretended L. gsaturc after their Illegal removal
Pawncc, where hc had fixed it in accordance with the
organic Act.
g. Another ground for relief was that the prisoners
had been arrested unlawiuy. even indicted lawfully,
having been taken of them, without color OF pro-
Gers or OF right. by mere mob, who had no warrant
other authority and carried from Missouri into Nan
sas and there detained until iOnn oi pretended
process could be obtained.
(. And another ground was that even II III" pro-
cccdnes were right in legal substance and form, tncy
were wrong Ill fact h'caus" uioro was III uuu' np
projGbic cause for SuSPtCtHs that Tie PRISONERS had
been guilty of any crime.
IT, The power OF the supreme Court. of any jus
tic thereof (" admit io bail. the alternative tclei
sought hv tie petitioners. And was urged hearing
circumstances under which the pretended lndc'-
found and of the present situation oi tlc
prisoners would aid the Court in deciding the pro-
! lricty of taking bail, and the amount OF ban when
| ought To be required.
The application failed before Judge Curtis, simply
because OF defect in the United States Statutes reg
ulating the issuing of process. The power appealed
to was the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. But this jurisdiction it seems, cannot be ex-
ercised by single Judge, but only by the Court sit
ting in tenn.
Since the judiciary Act, however, gives powerto any
Justice to issue the wit ofhaj,ds corpu> ii would seem
that Congress must have intended that the citizen
should not be deprived in vacation the benefit of the
writ merely because the Court not in session and
the reasoning of the learned counsel for the petitioner
was, that the power to grant the writ IMPLIED the
power 10 the nccdtuI process 10 issue and that
way the provision Of the lith section, under
| which the application made be rendered sensible
and sailablc save 10y mfcnng that the Justice may
issue his wit, direct the clerk at Washington
/ 10 issue the writ Of the supreme Court running
throughout all the States and Territories, and nude
rctunable To that Court, in tcnn before the Judge
! himself at Chambers.
Judge CrRrI, held, however, on the authority OF
kllinl ! L. Id