The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1860-12-27
tested to indictment in our Courts.

hereby declared to be invested In the
Judges Of this Commonwealth. the right,
power and authority at all times, on ap-
plicst,on made. TO aSSue the acrat Of ha6eas
corpus, and to inquire into the causes sDd
legality of the arrest or imprisonment OF
any human being within this Common
wealth
At first glance it would seem that this
section "a light cause some embarrassment,
but on further examination it will be seen
that it does not
)! 10 Article TX Declaration Of Rights.
Section XIV OF our State Constitution. it
is declared that 1.-The privilege of the writ
Of ha6eaS corpus shall not Re suspended,
unless when IN cases Of rebellion or inva.
sion the public safety may require it -
The third section of .he Act of la47 +,
by prohibiting any Of our State judges
from having jurisdiction, or taking cogni-
zauce of the case OF any fugitive from la
Dor. might be construed to take away
their right to issue the writ of ha6eas cor
pus in any such eases, and ifi stood thus,
alone, would be adjudged uncoustituton-
al. So 1t was deemed necessary to add
Section FIVE, to make Section three con-
stitutioual. Before the passage of Sec-
tion three, it was their right and duty to
issue the writ in all cases when it should
be properly demanded. So that it is ev-
ident, that claimant Of fugitive is
placed in no worse condition by the pas
sage Of this section, than he was in before,
and conversely be would be placed in no
better condition, if it we're repealed to-
morrow.
But some one may ask, how will the
issuing of this writ work in prsctice.-
Let US hear what Chief Justice Taney
(who certainly cannot be accused Of wish
ing to embarass any claimant, says in
United States vs. Booth, II Howard's S.
G. Reports, page 523 (Tbe italics are
mins ':We Go not question the authori-
ty of State Court or Judge who is author
lied by the laws of the State to issue the
writ of habcaS corpus. to issue it in sny
ca>e where the party is imprisoned with
in its territorial limits. provided it does
not appear, when the application is N ade +.
that the person in prison is in custody
under the authority OF the United States.
The court or judge has sht to inquire,
n this mode OF proceeding, for what cause
and by what authority the prisoner is
coufned within the territorial limits OF
the State Sovereignty. Aud it is the du-
ty OF the marshal or other person having
the custody of the prisoner, to make
known to the judge or court, By proper
return, the authority by which be holds
him in custody. This right to inquire
by process of habeaS corpus. and tbe duty
of the officer to make return. grows. ne :
oessarily, out of the complex character Of
our Government, and the existence OF
two di,tinct and separate sovereignties
within the same territorial space, each of
them restricted in its powers, and each of
them within its sphere of action. pre-
scrbed by the Constitution Of the United
States, independent Of the other. But
after the return Is made, and the State
judge or Court jadicia!ly opprised that the
fpartY is IN custody nnder tie auth0raty of
the United States, they can proceed no fur
Mer.'
And further this opinion vas acted up
on ID this city in the case Of the fugitive
] Moses Hornor. While the case was
pending be'ore the United States Judge,
some friend Of the fugitive made applI-
cation in the usual form for a writ OF hG-
beas corpus to one of our State judg
who not knowing whether the person who
it was sworn, was illegally restrained of
bis liberty, vas white. or elsck, granted
it. OF course. As soon as the slave was
remanded this writ was sersed upon the
mater and the Msr-hal The United
! States Judge refused to interfere. The
Marshal by advice OF bis counsel sent the
negro in mediately back to Virginia and
a. ade hi, return to the writ in the man
uer pointed out by Chief Justice Taney.
This opinion was cited tothe State Court.
who, OF course, recognized it as binding
upon them, and this was the end OF the
case
What may have been the view Of each
legislator in enscting this law no man can
say. have given what appears to ID"
must have been their reasons. and haze
stated What is OF far greater Importance,
it's prsctical working. ne reason Why
J, have done this is that in the event OF a
dissolution of the Union (Which may God
forbid) 20 one can truly say to Pennsyl.
{ vania that she contributed to it by vio-
lating the solemn compact of the Con-
, stitution of the United States. If for the
, last thirteen years we have been violat-
ing that Con-titution. then indeed can IT
be truly said that We have been "lamen'
tably ignorant of the legislation OF our
r own State" Some instances may be gl'
, ven to show the views Of our own citi'
zens On this subject.
The Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Socie
: ", n one of their reports, say: ut is
) humilating fact that Pennsylvania has
furnished more victims to the fugltist
] slave law than all of the other States OF
the Union put together" ln the last re-
q port of the Female Anti Slavery Society
they speak "of the Importance OF f'rocur
mo the enactment Of a law which SD al