Year: 1863

IN Inc Supreme Court Of this District several que sions
of Interpretation in law


JOHN DEAN, Esq of the attorneys behalf of the
defendant seeking his discharge resumed the argument
by an elaborate consideration OF the question Do the
acts OF Congressdo any all of them conjontly-give
the right of re-capture in this District -


Judge WYLIE said that of the principal questions
before the Court was Whether of the Justices of


is Court has the legal right to the warrant under
which this party (HalD arrested and now held Gus
tody?"


Mr DEAN took the ground that the acts of Congress
only apply to ugtves who have escaped from State to
another or where the fugitive has escaped from State
to another aud then is found in the District Of Columbia
and NOT to where the fugitive escapes to this
this by the act of 1901 He also held that all the previous
acts of Congress the subject of the rendition fugitive
slaves were repealed by special act of Congress of April
TO- 1862 and that this law freed this District from
all right in reclamation beyond doubt "Ths may be
bunder on the part of Congress- but it is the power
OF this Court to correct the bunders Of Congress God
often ordans in his awse Providence that great bodies
shall make bunders for the benefit of the Mr.
D. then made third point that if warrant can be issued
IN this District for the rendition of fugitive slave then
none but the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the
District can issue said warrant Again, that this new
Court is not Circuit Court of the United States


Mr. JoLLIFFE of Ohio, for the defendant, expressed it
as his opinion that all powers attaching the old Circuit
Court of this District and conferred upon this
new Supreme Court for the District of Columbia with the
exception of the power held by the former Court relative
to the enforcement of the laws for the rendition of fug
tive slaves He contended that the act of 1901 is
stutiona because it vests the Chief Justice with the
power to issue the warrant In his opinion such power
cannot be invested in judge but it must be conferred
upon Again, he held it to be ministerial and not
judicial act the Supreme Court of the United States
having decided in several He quoted legal au-
thoes to sustain this point He said there no such
officer as the Chief Justice of the District of Columbia
under the act of 1901 Under that the officer was
sgnated as Chief Judge" The acts of Congress pre-
scrbng the in which the rendition to be made
require that the demand should be made by the Executive
of State or Territory.


The attorneys the negative side having finished those
on the affirmative side proceeded


WALTER S. COKE, Esq. (for Geo. w. Duvall, owner)
took the ground that tie Of 1898 coners upon any
judge justice of the peace the authority process
for the rendition Of fugitive Mr. c. the course
of his argument, made the following points That the
act of March 1901 imposed the duty the Chief Judge
of surrendering fugitves, and that it constitutional
ID That the act of 1912 gave Circuit Court the power
to appoint commissioners for certain purposes 3D. That
the act of 1850 the power to any Judge of the Cir
cult or District Courts, any of said commissioners
to execute the same Duty and that that law applies to
the District Of Columbia in al it's remedial provisions


Mr. JOSEPH Fl. BRADLEY followed in an elaborate ar
gument showing that the fugitive slave law applies to every
part OF the United States which the Constitution of
the United States extended and every where the pro-
visions of sad law necessary to be brought opera


on to bring back to any good citizen that which is his
lawful due and which is guaranteed to him by the Consti-
tuition and the laws made under It,


The Court, having heard the arguments pro and CON-
adjourned reservirg its decision in the case.


On Friday the again taken up and Chief Justice
CARTIER announced that the court after mature consd
Grafton and consultation had resolved opinion or rather
they fouud themselves in condition where opinion
could be pronounced the court being equally divided upon
the motion discharge the reato by hab-as corpus They
all had embarrassments about it He of the opinion
that the power heretofore exercised in this District existed
the present time upon the subject of fugitive slaves
The question upon which they disagreed to the


functional power which existed for the execution of that
law and other. 1t was clear to his mind that the
10Th section of the law Of 1850 armed this court and the
authorities of this District with the power of and made
their duty execute that law and whether the duty was


pleasant not long he sat there he should per
form that duty let the consequences be what they might
While he was honest in this conviction two Of bis brother





the converse of the proposition and perhaps could furnish
better for than he could for sustaining his opinion
He had no doubt himself that under the Constitution as far
az the fugitive slave law concerned it was the purpose
to protect those who should claim ownership in slaves in
this District much any where else HI had no
doubt that the legislation that had followed had that pur
pose in view The great misfortune this: that the
District had maintained anomalous position to legislation
Holding these views he would refuse to grant the motion


Judge FISHER made few remarks having for their oh.
ect the annunciaton Of the fact that he Judge con-
Cured with he Chief Justice in the position he had taken
regarding the intention of Congress in the laws then under
consideration relative to fugitive saves.


Judge OLIN remarked that at an early day when time
and opportunity afforded him. he would take occasion
to write out his opinion Mt length But for the present he
would only state briefly aud 10 general terms the concu-
sons at which he had arrived These conclusions were
that the act Of Congress of 1850 did apply to this Dis
tric lar to cohe this court with power either to
appoint commissioners o act by the court itself or by
either of s Judges for the return of fugitive slaves escap
ing into this District


Judge WYLIE aso stated that at some future time he
would take occasion to write his opinion for the pre-
sent he would cay that he concurred with the opinion al
ready expressed by Judge OLN He said We are not
a Constitutional Circuit Court of the United States If
Constitutional Circuit Court of the United States
then nnetenths Of all Of functions are null aud if
Cirent Court tbe limited Satps