Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-07-18
JUDGE LEAvITTs DECISION IN THE
CASE OF THE UNITED STATES
,fff MARSHALS.

Judge Leavitt has finally decided the Clark
Courty rescue case in favor Of the United States
Marshals. We make such extracts from the De-
cisieS as are of general interest.
affer stating the case in detail, the Judge main-
tains the right of the Federal Court to issue the
writ of habeas corpus though the prisoner be held
by state authority. His authority is Congress
onal law passed in 1888, which he fortGes by
judicial precedent as follows:
There is high judicial authority for the exer-
else of the power in question by II judge of the
United States. under the act of 1888. In the case
ex-parte, Robinson, Mclean 355, known as the
Rosetta case, the facts stated that female
slave travelling in company with her master, in
the State of Ohio, was taken by writ Of haJeaS
corpus before Il Probate Judge at Columbus, and
adj Judged by him to be free. She was aflerw ards
arrested by the Marshal, rs fugitive, upon
warrant issued by Commissioner and upon a
habeds corpus issued by Judge Parker of the Court
Of Common Pleas of Hamilton comfy, the alledg-
ed fugitive was discharged from tho custody Of
! the Marshal She was again arrested upon an
other warrant issued by the same Commissioner,
and, while in custody and before the examination,
| by the Commissioner, Judge Parker adj judged the
Marshal guilty OF contempt Tor re arresting the
female and he was committed to Jail under that
| Judgment Judge Mclean, on the petition of the
Marshal issued writ of hdJedS corpus returna-
BILE before him and after full argument on the
facts stated ordered the Marshal to be discharged
! from Imprisonment. The learned Judge did not
hesitate to issue the hdGeaS coryus, under the sta
tute of 1888 and admitted evidence Of the facts
relating to the Imprisonment of the Marshal, and
discharged him, on the ground that he was mpris
oned for an act admitted to be done in obed
once to law. Although in that case there had
| been judgment by Court of Record that the
alledged fugitive was entitled to her discharge
this was not held to be conclusive and the judge
asserted the right of going behind the judgment
and examining the whole proceeding. The result
was, that the imprisonment of the Marshal was
declared to be illegal, End for an act omitted, pur
suant to a law of the United States. In his opin
ion, the Judge says, "a sense of duty compel'
me to say, that the proceedings of the honorable
Judge (Parker) were not only without authority
of law but against Iaw and that the proceedings
are void, and am bound to treat them as q nul
ity."
Another case, cited in argument, CO pdrfe Jen'
kins, 2 Wallace Jr., 52l, asserts the power of q
Federal Judge to issue the writ of hd6edS corpus
in all within the language of the act OF lo3t
and to discharge, under all circumstances, where
the Imprisonment is for act done by authority o
the United States The learned Judge Grier
of the Slpreme Court of the United States, in his
opinion on that case says, THE authority confer
red on the judges of the United States, by this ac
of Congress, gives them all the powers which any
: other Court could exercise, or gives them none a
9 all If under such writ they may not discharge
n their officer, when imprisoned by any authority
r for an act done in pursuance of law of the Uni
n ted States it would be impossible to discover To-
what useful purpose the act was passed. Is th
prisoner to be brought before them only that the.
may acknowledge their utter impotence to pro
tect him y
The case here referred to is very similar, in sev
n eral of its aspects, to one before this Court.
20 that case several deputy marshals were resisted i
n their attemuts to arrest fugitive. a compIait