Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1860-04-14
ARREST AND RELEASE BY HABEAS CO
PUS OF A CONTUMACIOUS WITNESS.

ARREST AND RELEASE BY HABEAS COR.
PUS OF A CONTUMACIOUS WITNESS.
The Boston papers report all the proceedings
connected with the arrest by the t.. S. authori-
ties of Mr.. Frank b. Sanboru, of Concord, Mas.
sachusetts, and of his discharge by the Supreme
Court of Massachusetts, before which he was tax
en- on a writ of habeas corpus.
Mr.. Sanborn's presence was desired in this city
to testify in relation to the raid at ~IIarper's Ferry,
but, as he refused to attend the summons. he was
arrested at his residence in Concord aboGt nine
o'clock on Tuesday night, by Sills Carlton, a dep.
uty United States Marshal, and two or three as.
sistants. The officers made the arrest Ivy obtain
ing access to Mr.. SIS house on the r~retcace Of
having a letter to deliver, and when they informed
him of the real object Of their visit he resisted
and was then taken by main force. At the same
time his sister ran out Of doors and by her cries
alarmed the whole neighborhood. The bells were
rung, aud the people gathered in great numbers,
and surrounding the officers prevented their efforts
to carry of Mr.. Sanborn. In the meantime Il
writ of Habeas corpus was procured from Judge
Hoar, and the case was heard before the Supreme
OOhlb q DOHtS VI Nv IOIlO mug udOt ICb llit
Court decided that the Sergeant alarms of the
Senate has no power to delegate his authority to
make an arrest to any other person.
The Opinion Of the Court was delivered by
Chief Justice Shaw, and, as a matter Of interest to
many of our readers, we copy it at length
National Tqte1igencGr.
This arrest was made by Silas Carleton, a ciu-
- Z 49, 49, = -
oath he shows a warrant to Duncan II. McNair,
Sergoant-at-Arms of the Senate Of the United
States, and says that the Sergeant-at-Arms entered
an order upon it delegating the power to Carlton
to make the arrest.
There is, therefore, no conflict in this case be-
tween the authority of an executive officer of the
United States and an officer of this Common
wealth.
Itappears by the answer of the officer, which
stands as part OF the return to the writ of habeas
corpus, that Carleton claims to have arrested San
born under a warrant purporting to have been is.
sued under the hand and seal of the Vice Presi-
dent of the United States and Presideht of the
Seuate, 1t reci;es the appointment Of Il committee
If the Senate to inquire into the circumstances Of
the attack made by = body Of men upon the arse
nal Of the United States az l~IarpeI's Ferry the
citation of Sanborn to answer as a witness before
such committee ; that he refused to attend accord
ing to such summons that be was thereby guilty
of q contempt and directing D.. r. McNair, Ser
geant-at- Arms of the Senate, to arrest the said
SaDborn, wherever he could find him, and bring
him before the Senate to answer for such con
tempt.
This warrant seems to have been issued on the
10th Of February last. There is an endorsement
of the same date, by the Sergeant-at, Arms, author
izing and empowering the said Carleton, the res.
~pondent, to make such arrest and the respondent
justifying the arrest made on the Sd April instant
under that process, the question is whether thi.
arrest is justified by this return.
This question is a very broad and a very i'm
portant one, and opens many interesting question:
as to the functions and powers of the United
States Government, and the modes in which they
are to be exercised, and the limits by which they
are qualified.
1t is admitted in the arguments that there is NJ
express provision in the Constitution of the United
States giving this authority in terms but it II
maintained that it is necessarily incidental to va
rious authorities vested in the Senate of the Unit
ed States, in its legislative, executive, and judicia
functions, and must therefore be hold to be con
ferred by necessary implication.
These questions, nanifsstly requiring great de
liberation and research in order to come to a sat
islactory conclusion, and some preliminary ques
tons having been suggested by the petitioners's
counsel. 1t was proposed, and not objected to By
the learned district attorney and assistant district
attorney of the United States by whom the cOurr
were attended in behalf of the respondent, to con,
slider these preliminary questions first; BECAUSE, il
the objections on the face of them were sustained
it would supersede the necessity Of discussing the
other questions arising in the case. These point:
have been argued.
For obvious reasons wO lay out OF this ~iniquity
the case of the Senate when acting in judicial ca
pacity on the trial of an Impeachment laid before
it by the House of Representatives, and we sup
pose the same considerations would apply to the
case of the House Of Representatives in summon,
ing witnesses to testify before them as the grand
inquest Of the United States with a view to an i'm