New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-05-30
KIDNAPPING IN WASHINGTON.

recently arrested IN the District OF ColumDla on u
warrant issued by Mr.. Justice Wylie, OF the
Supreme Court of that District. Subsequently
writ of habeas corpus was sued out IN the
same court by the alleged fugitive, and upon
its return motion was made for the discharge
of the petitioner on the ground that the war
rant for his arrest was issued without author
ity of law. That question was argued, both
for the claimant and the fugitive, before Mr.
Chief Justice Carter aud Associate Justices
Wyle, DIN, aud Fisher, and the Court was
equally divided in opinion, Justices Carter and
Fisher affirming and Justices Wylie and DIN
denying the legality of the process under
which Hall was originally seized. We collste
from Judge Wylie's very able opinion the fol-
lowing summary of the points at issue;
The important question in tho case was
whether the original Fugitive Slave Act OF
1893, and the supplementary act of 1850. or
either of them, are applicable to the District
of Columbia. As for the constitutional pro-
vision touching the rendition Of tugitlyes, 1t is
manfestly aud admittedly confined to the
states. and need not bs discussed in the pre-
sent case. The act Of 1898 also applies only
to States and to Territories northwest and
south OF the Ohio, and at the time of its pas
sage the District Of Columbia was not IN e1-
lstencs. But by the act Of eth February,
1901. the Government assumed possession OF
aud jurisdiction over the territory which had
been coded by Maryland and Virginia, the
laws Of those States respectively remaining
in force, and court, called the Circuit
Court of the District OF Columbia, pre-.
sued over BY chief judge, was created by the
act and invested with ali the powers by law
residing in the Circuit Courts Of the United
States. Other provisions IN the act which
gave 1t brtn made this court in effect IA court
oil local jurisdiction, both civil aud criminal
Congress. however, seems to haic forgotten to
provide espec all, for the case o3fug!.lses from
justice aud iugltiyes from services or labor
An attempt was made to supply this omia
sion by the sixth section Of the act of March
3, l-Vl, which empowered aud required the
Chief Justice OF the Distrct to tause fugitIves
to be apprehcnded aud delivered up, in the
same manner and under the sSiae regulations
a. the executive authority OF the several States
are required 10 do the same concerning this
section, II IL to DO remarked ;hsi, at tho time
OF It's passage ana dosn TO tho present time.
there never Was any Chief Justice OF the Dis
triet. 40 therein named aud referred to: aud
lLat, II there had been, and II tic court Of the
District were as 10 claimed q constitutional
Cl.cuit Court Of the United States, the duties
imposed upon 1t, beng executive aud min's.e-
raj, cannot be legally required Tor performed,
aud that, therefore, the provision OF the act Is
void. II the Court IS regarded as local, the
latter objection does not apply. But in prac-
licc tue law WI. OF little account. because
MARYLAND, Virginia, and the District were all
.,ia,chodng communities aud the claimant was
accustomed to seize al alleged fugitive where
ever ho could find hun. without! any legal pro.
Gee. whatever. la any case, however, the
above provision coniors the power Of issuing
warrant only upon the Chief Justice, and II It
De ussulnod that the chief Judge, by virtue of
H. possessed the risnt ia qursiloo, II is equally
Gear that no such authority was vested IN the
A ,sociate Justices BY the original act Of 1893
or b, the act oi 1901. And since the warrant for
the arrest of Hail Was Issued by Associate
Justice Wyle. authority Tor it must be found
If anywhere, IN the Fugitive Slave act of 1850
and the net of March B. 1865, establishing tae
present Supreme Cour, Of the District Of Co.
lumba.
/ The first nine sections Of the act Of 1850
are limited iu terms to the several States.
aud have nothing to do with the District
Tue tenth IL the only section which relates TO
the District. or in which it is named, and that
srctlon has no other effect than TO lesalize
lbe surrender Of q fugitive by any "judg~,
commissioner, or other officer authorized by
the Jaw OF the United States, to cause persons
escaping from service or labor to DO delivered
up" But since there WIS no judge, commits.
soner or other officer authorized 50 to act
within the District, it is clear that this see
ron is no more to the purpose than any other,
and neither confers jurisdiction upon any
court already established, nor erects new
tribunal. The argument which attempts to
include the Circuit Court Of tho District
among the Circuit Courts of the United
States. which were invested with jurisdiction
III fugitive cases by the act of 1850, is unin-
porlunt, for the same reason a. above stated,
that it IL only the Circuit Courts within the
several States which are referred to by that
act.
1t follows, therefore, that, neither in the Con-