Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-04-30

sequent legality Of the custody and confinement to
which the fugitive slave may be subjected under
1t, l proceed to q brief consideration of the more
particular question you have propounded in refer.
ence to the writ Of aabeas corpus, and Of the last
clause OF the siSh section, above quoted, which
gives rise to that question.
My opinion, as before expressed, is, that there
is nothing in that clause or section which conflicts
or suspends, or was intended to suspend the priv.
lege Of the writ Of habeas corpus. / think 80, be.
cause the bill says not one word about that writ |;
because, by the Constitution, Congress is express.
iy forbidden to suspend the privilege Of this writ,
"uniess when in cases Of rebellion or invasion the
public safety may require it !" and therefore the
suspension by this act There being neither rebel
lion nor invasion) would be a plain and palpable
violation Of the constitution, and no intention to
commit such q violation of the Constitution, of
their duty, and their oaths, ought to be imputed
to them upon mere constructions and implications;
and, thirdly, because there is no incompatibility
between the provisions of the bill and the priv,
lege of the writ Of hdbeas corpus, in its utmost
constitutional latitude.
Congress, in the case of fugitive slaves, as in all
other cases with the scope of Its constitutional au.
tuOii ~ a. NHO W. toVotiObopiV iiRhht W Oiuaih auo
precribe for wha. causes, to what extent, and in
what manner, persons may be taken into custody,
detained or imprisoned. Without this power they
could not fulfil their constitutions trust, nor per.
form the ordinary and necessary duties Of govern
ment.
It was never heard that the exercise of that leg
~islative power was any encroachment upon, or
suspension Of, the privilege Of the habeas corpus.
1t is only by some confusion Of ideas that such
conflict can be supposed to exist. 1t is not with.
in the province or privilege of this great writ to
loose those whom the law has bound. That would
q be to put a writ granted by the law in opposition
to the law to make one par. of the law destruct'
i've of another. This writ follows the law and
f obeys the law. 1t is issued upon proper complaint,
to make inquiry into the causes of commitment or
, imprisonment, and it's sole remedial power and
purpose is to deliver the party from ''all manner
CT illegal confinement" e Black. Com, 1917 Il
! upon application to the court or judge for this
writ, or il, upon its return, it shall appear tha
the confinement complained of was lapfui, tht
writ in the first instance would be refused, and il
the last the party would be remanded to his former
taagfuR custody.
The condition of one in custody, as a fugitive
slave, under this law, SO far as respects the wri
of habeas corpus, is precisely the SAM as that o
all other prisoners under the laws of the United
States. The privilege OF that writ remains alike
to all of them, but to be judged of-granted or re
fused-discbarged or enforced by the proper tri
bunal, according to the circumstances of eacl
case, and as the commitment and detention may
appear to be legal or illegal.
IL -la1. oT..k L L.. Al, l..al
stated. Congress has constituted q tribunal with
exclusive jurisdiction. to determine %summarily
and without appeal, who are ~fugitives from service
or labor under the second section of the fourth ar
ticle Of the Constitution, and to whom such servic
q or labor is due. The judgement of every tribuna
of exclusive jurisdiction, where no appeal lies, i
!, Of necessity conclusive upon every other tribuna'
and therefore the judgemnt Of the tribunal crea
,e ed by this act 10 conclusive upon all tribunals
Of Whenever this judgement is made to appear, 1t
ID conclusive of the right of the owner to retain i
II his custody the fugitive from his service, and to n
move him back to the place or State from whic
he escaped. If it is shown upon the applicatio
,e of the fugitive for a writ of habeas corpus, it pr,
,e vents the issuing of the writ-if upon the return
,e it discharges the writ and restores or maintain
10 tue cuetouy.
This view of the law of this case is fully su
tanned by the decision of the Supreme Court
the United States in the case of Tobias Watkin
"a where the Court refused to discharge, upon IL
IL ground that he was in custody pnder the senten,
st of q court Of competent jurisdiction, and tn
bt judgement was conclusive upon them. e PEI
d 2O2.)
~ The expressions used in the last clause Of Il
O. sixth section, that the certificate therein alluded
o. 'shall prevent all molestation" of the persons
whom granted. 'by any process issued" &,
probably mean only what the act of 1893 mear
m By declaring a certificate under that act a %suficie
I'd warrant for the removal of q fugitive, and certai
il ly do not mean a suspension of the habeas corpus
ed lconclude by repeating my conviction, that the
is nothing in the bill in question which conlie
Ie. with tho Constitution, or susperds, or was inten
m ed to suspend, the privilege of the writ of habe
he corpus.
20 l have the honor to be, very respectfully, S
er your obedient servant,
he j. j. CRiTTENDEN.
an To THE PRESIDENT.