Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-06-18
Tbe Antt- 5Iaperp Bu9le.
JUDGE SWANS OPINION.

j. r. SWAN, Ch. j.:
1t is proper to say that Judge of this Court or
&he Supreme Court of the State in regular session
has no more Jurisdiction or judicial power, or die
cretion, in determining questions which arise upon
habeas corpus than Probate Judge of the county.
Each must be governed by the same rules, and
each are invested with the game powers-no more
and no less.
The reators being brought before us on habeas
corpus, our inquiry must be confined to such
questions as are properly cognizable under that
writ,
The return shows tha. the sheriff of Cuyahoga
county holds tse relators in custody under SEN
,ence and Judgment of the District Court OF the
United States for the ofense of rescuing fugiuVes
from service. The judgment of the District Court
is conclusive, and precludes oil inquiry on habeas
corpus unless it is nullity.
Waving all questions made by counsel as to
tho power of State Judge on habeas corpus to de-
clare the sentence of court of general Jurisdlc-
tiou invalid, it is very clear that wo cannot on
habeas curpus, 60 behind the sentence ana re-
wise aud review the previous proceedings Oh the
court. For instance, if these relators had been
tried by packed jury found guilty withou. sui
fcient proof and upon an erroneous ana lliegai
charge Of the court, we could not set aside the
verdict, arrest the sentence, or revise the Judg-
Of the Court. 1t would, indeed, be imputing to
the counsel of the relators the widest and most
absurd views of the law to intimate that they
claim that judge, on habeas corpus can 60 be-
hind a sentence and review and revise the mode
in which trial was conducted. No such claim
is made but refer to the subject because those
who are unacquanted with the limitations upon
the mower of this Court, when deciding upon ha-
beas corpus, are not probably aware, that Judge
would be guilty of high handed usnrpati'n' ana
would deserve impeachment. if he undertook to
discharge the relaters on any assumed ground
that they were aet, iu fact, guilty OF rescung
SusiGFe slaves from labor; or had not had fair
or impartial trial.
Neither the verdict of the jury nor the judgment
Of the District Court can be collateraly impeach-
3D. If that Court had jurisdiction of the party and
and offense The verdicts and sentences of Courts
in every case would be subject to arbitrary inter-
rneddling, anG might be set aside and criminals
discharged by any judge who is authorized by
statute to issue this writ if case could be re-ex-
amned and the justice Of the verdict and sentence
considered on habeas corpus.
And further, if court, having jurisdiction
ovsr ar ofense created by valid and constitution
al law. pronounces sentence, and the commitment
,,ser that sentence is returned on habeas corpus,
tbe form of the Indictment or the want OF proper
allegations therein, cannot be inquired into ior
the babeas corpus cannot be converted into a WITT
of error In such case the court, having Jurisolc-
t;on over the oense, must itself pronounce the law
of the case, and, until reversed by some compe-
tent tribunal, is conclusive on all other courts and
nuts an end to all collateral inquiry on habeas cor
nus. Exparte Watkins, Pet. 1893 In the mat
Ter of Prime Barb. BAL In matter Shaw, 7
Ohio, St. Rep. 81. Hence it is that the statute
itself relating to this writ excerpts from those who
are entitled to the benefit of habeas corpus al
persons convicted of some crime or ofense, fol
which they stand committed, plainly and specific
ally expressed in the warrant of commitment
{Swan's Statutes 450, sec. L..
ss The District Court then, having by law, if con
stitutiona, jurisdiction the ofense mentioned
in the mittimus, and having pronounced sentence
Ii must be deemed conclusive on ha5eas corpus
We are bound to take the return as true; and i
the reators could, under any state of facts be il
able to imprisonment for rescuing an escaped fu
gitive in violation of the seventh section of til
act of Congress of 1850, the reiators must be re
manded. 3 1 -.-
1t is true that the officer had procured and ba
% reformed with the mittmus copy of the record
The mittimus ITSELF however, was and is his au
b thority for holding the reators ii designate
with sufficient certainty the cause of commitment
end the fact that the officer has procured copy
O. the record and has annexed it to the mitmus an
Z made it part of his return, does not alter ou
jssisdiOtion on habeas corpus. The District Cour