The daily press. (Cincinnati [Ohio) 1859-1859, 1859-04-04
LAW REPORT



Writ or HABEAs CORPUS DIsMIssED. I'm the Com
mon Pleas on Saturday before Judge Dickson an in;
SPCR % Ssbda % thS
him to produce In Court the body Of Lewis Early,
negro alleged to be in his custody without authority
The Marshal set forth in his return that he held
this party under warrant from Chas Brown, United
States Commissioner, and in obedience to his order;
ana that at this hour he was present At an nvesisa
fore be produced before this Court
The question was to the sufclency Of this return
Marshal was represented by the Hon Geo. T. Push.
Mr.. Caldwell's application for continuance OF the
fore the Commissioner, resulted in discussion, for
which our space s not sufficient to give report The
Judge Dickson u He sI ssd ""' '' us''iOn
o6d J6is an M application @ made BY MessTs Jols life and
custody Of the United States Marshsl The petition
Of Commitment from Charles Brown, a CommIssioner
OF the United States and that this Commssoner had
the Marshal s in substance, that he holds the negro
II obesnce to this warrant and to the order Of said
been taken, and was now before his Court pending
The questions are presented for determination;
First, ought this Court to have issued the writ Of
habeas corpus2 At common law, while this writ
matter q coue when the pe S' By his Own
showing presented such ,cese that, on the return
pa party Il s% the writ issue The
leading decision this point is found In Barnwell
States husetts and Pennsylvania The reason
S hS 9 % S2 Ss
as an imperative duty Of the Court n proper appli
custody under final commitment for grime, or Is held
on charge q treason or capital ofsnse expressly
unanimously held, in the case Of Collier, that this
writ must issue.
Marshal Is suficientNdoes il excuse him from the
production Of the bodyi It does, In the opinion of
ton to issue this process under Which the Marshal
nolds me party Ine reason, or the RUE oi the law
the Courts having concurrent jurisdlotion first &C
dob To Ss Ef sysn o tsS sT II Il IL %
,sn especially IA in view Of the complex mp character @ q
eTsl that such % rule f Of harmony based
on principles Of comfy, should have strict obsery-
cSton If Court issue aS process Without any u
sdcGn hH process Is void GnS Court Of
duced the inquiry, as to whether the United States
Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue the process
tutiona law. Whether that law is constitutional OF
not is grave question. The most eminent statesmen
strength to bear in its investigation The books fur
nished the result of their abors He (Judge Dickson
10 The case was res Hdj%diSsta The % FnsfiVe
slave Law Of 1923 was held by the Sugreme Court OF
This was affirmed BY The Supreme Court ! IN 4, 5th
FaER sS Of sS lar @
stutional questions are concerned differs in but on
ing the power @ Of remRanding to Commiss nes III
old law gave 1t to Justices Of the Peace; This nev
| Jaw was nelu COnstlIulloDai Dy JuuRe an
| by Judge Nelson, of the New York Circuit, and b.
tho unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of Mas
sachusetts, and on the 7th day Of March last by tn
unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court Of tn
United States The question, therefore, is adju
renee to settled precedent. In the face Of this weigh
Of authority it would SAVIOR of factious opposition
the Federal authority for inferior Court of Stat
, to interpose and declare the law unconstiutiona
Ss ssa wSS % Se in of S %
lessness, and 70 produce alienation and distrust b
tween the judiciary of the Union and the State ud
ciary, where mutual regard and confidence should o
tain; II the law is oppressive or unjust there is
constitutional remedy by application to theLegisati
4 Department of the Government or the Supreme Cou
of the Union. He (Judge } felt II to be his duty
. hold the return of the Marshal final, and to di
| miss the writ.