The New York Herald Newspaper, April 13, 1851, Page 1

ferme WHOLE NO, 6747. IN BOSTON. His “INDICATION OF THE LAW Termination of the Slave Cas Surrender. DECISION IN FULL OF CONMLMISSIONER CURTIS, Judge Woodbury’s Refusal to Enter- tain a Habeas Corpus. ‘Shipment of the Slave to Georgia on board the Brig Acorn, Prayers and indignation of the Abolitionkts. RIAA AAA, INCIDENTS, &e., &o., &o. VECISION OF COMMISSIONER CURTIS, REMANDING THE SLAVE. At nine o'clock on Friday morning, the Commissioner sqpeaeaded to deliver the following opinion in the case of cimms :— On Friday Last, Thomas Simms, a man of color, of about twenty-two years of age, wai before me under 2 warrant issued at the instance of James Potter, a citizen of Chatham county, in the State of him as a fugitive from service. The bi -has beea continued.from day to. di time, and I am now to give my dec ‘That decision it would require but ery short time to pronounce, if there had not been raised a question of ‘av, which I iaust examine avd pase upon The learned -counsel for the prisoner have aagued with great ability ‘the question of the constitutionality of the act of Von- grest under Which this warrant was issued, and have “talled upon me, as they had a right to do, to affirm or * it. It cansearcely be necessary for me to say that i have been glad to have been relieved of this Aabor and responsibility, by any tribunal whatever, com- retent to assume the decision of the question; but inas- ‘tne fupitve'to the state of Georgle ie concerned’ sand ve to the Scat is concerned ; an facade as no court has felt it to be necessary to inter- pese to relieve meof this responsibility, I Kuow of no \Feason why I should shrink from it. I have boen told, Andced. by the learned counsel who closed this case for the prisoner (Mr. Charles G. Loring.) that it seems to shave been the design of the projectors of this law to make it a3 odious us possible to the poople of the free States; and that if it is held to be constitutional, end- less agitation must eusue. Thave been told that my decision will send thisman to perpetual siavery; and asif to increase to the utmost in- density the responsibility of acting according to its im- erative requisitions, 1 have ulso been told, that there are many persons in this community, fully entitled to remain licre, whowill be placed practically and directly in the peril of its grasp. if it is held to be eoastitutional. Tam here to decide a grave questien of law, the deci- slon of which, so fur as the rights of the parties before ame deped upon it, has been unavoidably cast upon me 4 am to decide that question upon my conscientious -convictions of the truth, by an intellectual process, over Whésh consequences can have no just intluence or con- trel. 1 have listeued, with all the attention [ could | command, to what has been addressed to my reason. L Ahave too much respect for the learned counsel. and have | ‘too stienuously endeavored” to keep my n m atti- tude Where it could appreciate his argameat, to have al- ‘lowed inyself to suppose that any part of it was intended ‘to be adivessed to my fears. LU recognise in his suggos- tions and his earuc of the strength of his convictions, Gmportance of the cpinions which he so ably aud x Jously maintains, ‘The learned counsel said to me, in the course of his ar- gument, that there was a consideration con the Statute under which I act, which must be hat wwting to this court, and toevery other that had ay thing to do with it; and that was the clause whieh the compensation to depend upon the manner in w the case was decided. rived counsel supp: that the sum of five dellars was likely to influence my jadgment upon any question in this ease, he did right ii yeminding me that the statute provides for a com - tion. But it woulg, in my opinion, have boca weil if the learned counsel. before he addressed to ne th servation, hal examined the statute, to see wheth though it authorizes the Commiasionor to recvive ¢ nation. it imposes upon him avy obligation to tak it does not, I see no cause for humiliation, and 1 tainly feel none. In stating the views which I entertain of the various of objection to the constitutionality of tis Taw, urged by the learned counsel for the prisoner, I shall not undertake Lo answer the whole of tieir coure of reasoning. My purpose will be to state the reasons which satiety my own mind that their objections are untenable, Then, I cannot expect to convinee, wader the elrcuinstances of the prevent occasion ; nor is it any part of my duty to endenvor todo so. My duty, bs oma tc my understanding of it, will be fully dis- charged. by stating my own convictions upon the » questions (hat bavebeen discussed. Nor shall 1 take to examine @mguments that have been ima where, or to fol! nd refute any or deciamation that have led othe: h entertaic, with regard to this constitutional ques The first objection taken by the learned counsel for ‘the prisoner, to the constitutionality of this act of Con- | atess, is, Chat the power which the Commissioner amder- | takes to exercise under it ie a judicial power, a Constitution of the United States docs not ‘Congress to confer judicial power upon any p y with stated salaries. appeinted by th» 1" for Ife, aud holding thelr offices during good behav The 3d article of the constitution declares that « judicial power shall extend to all cases in law aud equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States,” S&e.. and it also declares, “That the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in preme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Comsgeey # «may, from time to time, ordain and establish, The Judge, both of the Supreme and Inferior Courts, shall xt behaviour, and : ir verviews a compe Bhich shol not be dimini<hed during thoir coatiunance in office e Commissioner, it is yory properly con- tended, ix not such a Judge The principal authority relied upoa by the learned | counsel to enstain their position that the power con- terred upon the Commissioner f¢ a judicial power, is a panage in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the dl by Mr. Justice Story.) in the t ylvauia. 16 tt lb Veters, Gi6. That parauge i then, that where a ¢ possession. for the delivery it ail, against some other perso sight is a right of property. eap and asserted befure a eowrt of ju udverse to each other, it constitut Me. ® coutroversy betwoee the parti arising made. if as the under the Constitatitn of the Un within the express delegation of ju that instrament ohgress. then. ‘into activity for th eight; ond if tent in wh what circomstonces. the p plete proiection and gueranty to the right.’ The force and effect of any pasenge in & Court depends, of course, upou the question and upon the course of J in corning to the decision, The great ques cae Were, whether as a matter of jw nder of fugitives from service we he constitution upon the general governime the State gov ents; and if upon the ge mett, whither Congress could legislate to carry t junction of the constitution into effect. The d the Court was, that this duty was imposed exclusively uayon the general government; and being imposed there, ‘upon the great principle that where there isa duty im. posed, the menns of fulfilling it are by necessary implica- tion pert of the grant, that Congress powessed a full authori to provide thor means by legiflation. In cooming to this result. the court laid down the two position contained ia the Lat the bar, and which I have just read. that «claim fort . session of « fugitive slave was a case arising under the | constitution of the United States,.and so was within the | nt of judicial power which that constitution had con. | ered upon the goneral government; secondly, that. be, ing such a case, Belonging to the judicial power of tho Cnion, and not to that of the Stator, it was for Congress m of pro: judicial t vo amd preseri » remedy, the ceedings, and the mode and extent in which tl wuld be called int» activity wl for the pris aoe sivenuonsly on the first of these p have said nothing with regard to the why they are not beth equally binding apon im onseleres, They are both the solemn ann the highest tribunal of the country, of doc stitational law, and if Tam to take the one, « ly do tnie it, to be eettied law, Tam eqaaily b gard the other. also, in the sant light Famnit. ¢ fatly, that a claim for a fugitive day m parties. « under the Cone(htuti the United States, and there Judicial power of the Unit auaintain. thet, inasmuch as this case belong Hotel power of the United States, it ix for Cong Jeelde in what mode, to what extent, and under » st SOMA Of provceding that judicial power shail be called into exercise, (h tader to give effect to the reght of the | ner claiming a fugitive slave. If so. the only question daompethor this particular form of procedure authorised % soot, 4s or is not such form of exercising the ju | it is competent to the genoral govern: ment to employ I take it t6 have been as trac at the time when the | oe ion was formed, as it has been since, and had ‘eon for @ very long time previous, that jn «il govern- nents formed upon the English model, possessing | ‘copaitutioal division of the exeoutire. legis Mee ‘and judicial departinent’, there is im the adminis: diatom of the laws and the discharge of the functions of govervment. # certain class of inquries, judicial in their | the constivution. | maight en: | sition witore, bat whieh are confided to offlcors not conetitut- ing a port of the Judiciary, strictly so called. Thus, in Fngland, a Master in Chancery performs duties which idea which are eon. or the morial usage of ly. mat by stat ‘o¢ whieh, be is a villget. llr decisdons, in ’ iF ae hy eft al RS : their ter Masters of the Court of Chancery. In like manner, sheriff in’ E: cial capacity, and performs are fur capacity,” sa; ‘kstone, determine all cass of fort “In his. ji hear and nly these illustrations from English usage, to show that there isa class of inquries of « judicial nature, constituting, in one sense, the exer- cise of judicial power, and generally directed for a spe- cial purpose, which are confided to officers who are not judges. ‘This usage is, in truth, much older then the very origin of English law, and was derived apparently from the Roman jurisprudence. There was a class.of officers, under the Roman law, called the Pedanei Judices, the ‘tants of the Prietor, to whom he wus id the habit: of delegating some of his judicial duties, for special pur- poses, who were allowed’ to receive gratuities from the ties for their services, (Dig. fi. 1, 16. Just. Novel. ixxxiii,c. 9.) There is Uttle doubt that the office of Master was borrowed from this source. When we come to the practice of governments consti tutedas ours are under written constitutions, carefully separating the judicial from the other powers of govern- ment, and strictly defining the tenure of the judicial office, if we find the same to prevail, and that it is extensively’ practised, it ‘certatnly shows that there exists in our system also a class of inquiries, judicial in their nature, and special in their purpose, which may be con- fided to the determination of officers who are uot ju ‘The constitution of this commonwealth declares that ‘fell judicial officers” shalt hold their offices during good. behavior, and shall be appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Qouncil. The Bill of Rights, morvover, with great stringency declares that neither thé legislative, executive, or judicial departments, shall ever exercise the powers of either of the others, = to the end it may be @ government of laws, and not of men.” Yet the Legislature of this commonwealth have autho- rimed a sheviff to preside at crials by juries, sammoned to assess damages for laying out Makenset have made it his duty to “deeide all questions of law arising on the trial, which would be proper for the decision of a judge ; and to dircet the jury upon any questions of law when requested by apy party; and to certify to the court, with the verdict, the substance of any decision or dirse- tion by him given, when any party shall request it.’? (Rey, Stat, ¢. 24, rec. 23-25.) Of course, if neither party dow " ff to certify his rulings, they are finul and conclusive ; and this constituies, in the most ainple sense, the exercise of judicial power by an officer whom no one can suppose isa judge. In like inanner, ire of this commonwealth have authorized the courts to appoint auditors, to hear matters of xecount, An auditor exercises judicial power, adjudicates and set- tles matters of law and fact, and determines « present right; for al:hough his decision is not final, yet it changes the burthen of proof from the plaintii® to the defendant, if the adjudication is in favor of the former. Yet an auditor certainly is not a judge, or a “judicial oMtcer,’ within the meaning of the constitution. Bo, also, the extensive an ortantiduties imposed by statute upon cominissioners of insolvency, constitute the exercise of judicial power, But can any one suppose that it is not competent to the Legislature to regulat Appointment and te of office of those ling to their ure, because the © fixe dicial officers ?"* but a tribunal exerei ment of county commise! What is the Court of County ng judicial pow ners is sometin ed in the executive and sometin ¢ ure certain jud aving special objects, which are and mu: by inferior officers, not appointed, quali issioned as tha constitution of the State requires # to be appointed, qualified and commissioned usage prevails nnder the government of thy United Stotes, Under that government, for instance, there is an officer called Commissioner of Patents, He exercises ju- dicial power; for the question whether one of two rival inventors is entitled nt, is a ease arising wi matitution and laws of the sion involves adjudication of um sto a pr the petent t the granting of the patent to one p not to the other, clothes the party who re the very right for which both were contending. to be deemed, ag against all the world, pri first inventor of the thing patented. ‘Now, ever thought of complaining of the ereation of . ae an improper mode of exercising the judicial power of Une Uniited States, There are others officers of the United States whose duties touch more nearly the ordinary win’ nist Justice in he courts of the United States, in whi city L now sit hi of Congress passed Feb 20, 1812, the the United States wore cmpowered to appoint commissioners to take bail ant affidavits in civil causes, By a subsoquont wet, passed powers of these comm them to tak courts of the United States, t, paseed Aug. 63, 1542, their pu dod, to enable facie, the t ng years, therefore, have ficcrs have beep called upon to ex. creive jud.cial power, in arresting, examining and im- prisoning offenders against the law ls in Yet the power which al power of the United Xumination is Binal and eon. clusive, for ® special parpose, to wit, the imprisoumeut of the party until trial. It settles a present right, nan ly, that the party is to be deprived of his liberty watil a fixed time shall arrive, when a grand jury shall detor- mine whether to find @ bill of indictment against him or not, ‘This ix clearly the ex limited and special nature, conf re who ave not judges truth is, then, aa it would seem. that in every go- vernment of laws, administered b y " most be a clase of judicial inquirte: the gener: compass of the julicial power, bu! their special, Limited and ministerial natare, es violating any constitutional rule, of being with- » from the action of the rts, and intrust voll rs specially authorized to t them. It may be Mcult to define the boundary on one side of whic all hewe cases would range themselves, It might be wholly pedient to define it, in a written coristitution, That jurict can entertain any doubt; and it sens Jy question in this case ia, whether ( in puthorizing these summary proceedings befure missioner, for the surrender of a fugitive from servi buve passed that boundary oF not Lam clearly of opinion that they have not; and thi brings tion of the nature, chara if. in rogard to whieh L distor entirely from the learned counsel for the prisoner. Ile maintains thet this ie « trial of the right of Thomas Simms to hie liberty, and that it ix fi ployed by ustain his position, eonsist of eon- stions, a¢ to what the claimant is phy- ‘sieally able to do, after he gets the prisoner into his session. If the learned counsel expects that in settling a question of constitutional law, and in determining on the character and effect of this proceeding, 1 am to look out of the statute, away from what it authorizes the Jectures, or ug | claimant to de, and to induige my ination as to what he may do aside from it, T am afraid that { eannot atiefy the expectation. It has, however, been arguod that the claimant may tear up the certifieate the moment he receives it; that he may carry the prisoner to any other State, or to Cuba, or Brazil” and sell him; or that if he ever takes him to ticorgia, bo may hurry him into the interior, upon a plantation, and break down rie rit, and refuse him all opportunity to obtain # rial of the question of his freedom, Thee things, whici the claimant may do, aro gravely put ¢ whieh Lam wo determi for reme that this que al by th | of the constitution and the act in question Inthe firt place, then, I hold that the rendition of fogitives from service, under the constitution. t « to the rendition of fugitives from justios, and wo ease ras the powers and d neal government are concerned, are of the sau 1 acter, and may appropriately be pi sume general meane, It has, indeed, Jot the bar, that the two cnses are mn h oher as powsible, amd that they w { There is, however, reapectable — more than Poxpectable — authority for the po- that they are not only analagous, but that the templated similar proceedings in both ory, in minentaries on the constitu King of both Of these provisions, holds the fol lowing langunge : “Tt le obvions that these provirions for the arrest and removal of fugitives of both classes, contemplate eam mary ministerial proceedings, and not the ordinary © of judicial investigations, to ascertain whether the complaint be well founded, of the claim of ow anr-hip be established beyond all legal controver In eases of suspect d crimes. the guilt of innocence of the party ix to be made out at bis trial; and not upon the preliminary inquiry whether he shall be delivered up. All that would seem in euch eases to be necessary, if, that there should be prime evidence before the exccutive au- thority to satiety ite judgment that there ix probable came to believe yy ae om a8 upon an offi- nary warrant wou! his commitment for trial And inthe enses of ive slaves, would the same recesety of tiem a¢ Me ages by & eu peer to have acted upon this opinion, and | dm the statute upon this subject, have aithorised sum- { one has | 3 RAE MT ETE NS NOTE IRL AE TT TRS ATL TR Ne RTI So O sg tee RK I SUNDAY MORNING, APRIL 13, 1851. dings before a magistrate, up9m which he ‘may a warrant fora removal.”—(3 Story’s Vom. ‘on the Consitn., § 1806.) ‘The commentaries were written and publishid near; ten years befere the case of Prigg ys. rennsyireols ‘o¢~ |. When the learned came to deliver the opinion of the court im that case, he ssid—! There are wo clauses in the constitution, on, the subject of fegi- i ives, which stand in jaxtay ion with each other, aud have been thought mut; to illustrate each other.” (16 Peters, 611.) Let ane ask, by whom havo they been ?- Manifestly, by ‘the Congress who enacted othe law of 1798, which provi for carrying both those clauses {nto effect in the same statute, and by similar proceedings. with the single difference that 4u tho one case the appropriate proof was to be presented to the executive ofa State, who is to deliver the fugitive to the agent of the State demanding him, and in the other the an od suc is to be presented to a Judge of the Cireuit or Distriet Court of the Ustited States, or any magistrate of a county. city or town corporate, who is to grant ac te to the claimant, authorising him to remove the fugitive to the State or Territory from which he fled. ct of Feb, 12, 1793.) It is obvious, therefore, that ao far as the legislation of the country, practised oe tcp pen sf ny deme have any tendency to establish an analo ‘tween these cases, this legistation warrants the position that they are analogous, In ad- ition to this, the declaration Of the Supreme Court of the United States, in Brigg's caso, carefully and indus- triously made, that they regarded’ the act of 1793, rola- tsi to fugitive wv ea Parycvic pens prog in all its provisions, and, with the exception of tha: which confete euthorhy, an Beate porn h as from reasonable doubt or difficulty,” tomy mind clearly authorizes the inference, that it is as lawful for Congress to authorize summary ministerial procesdings da the case of ono class of fugitives, as it is In the case 0 the other, for it is quite plain that they had authorizod such proceedings in both. In addition to the authoritica already cited: to thi ut. I may also rely on that of the Supreme Court o Penurylvania, who, in the year 1819, said of the law o 1793, shat. * Il plainly appears, from the whole scope ant tenor of the constitution and act of Congress, that the fugitive was to be delivered up, oa a summary proceed. ing, without the delay of a formal trial in # court of com- mon liw. But if he had really a right to freedom, that right was not impaired by this proceeding; he was placed just in the situation in which he stood before he fled, and might prosecute hia right in the State to which belonged." —Wright va. Deacon, 6 Serg. and Rawle, 64. It would sem, therefore, that it only remains to ine quire whether the ne authorizes or requ anything more than & summary iministerial proceedin wely, ine this, itis necessary to look at the proceedings which have beca authorized. The statute, like the act of 1793, requires the claimant to present to the commissioncr proof that the person whom he demands owes him service in another State; and when the commissioner is satisfied of this, ho isto grant a certificate, which will authorize the re. moval. Now, it seems to me to have very little tendeacy to show that this is a full and fina! trial’on the ques: of ragvitude, to say that the proof required to be offer ix, that the party is held to service. The force and of the evidence required by the statute must be li to the object for which it ix required; nnd if that object be, as it clearly ia, to establish the right of removal only, it cannot be extended to another and ulterior ob; ect, namely, the right to continue to hold the party after he has been removed. In the case of 4 fugitive from justice, it must be proved that he has committed a crime. But proved for what purpose? Clearly to establish the right of removal. This having beon established, the warrant that authorizes bis removal has no effect to authorize his imprisonment or punishment in the State to which he is removed; but the right of that State so to hold and. ie him, must be established, just as if he had never left its jurisiction, Tam equally unable, also, to feel the foree of the objec- tion, that in the case of a fugitive from service, he ix sur- rendered to his owner, whereas a fugitive from justice is surrendered to a State; for the fret seems to me to have no tendency to shaw that the proceedings hure are, in either case, a trial of anything more than tho right of removal, In both cases, the government of the United States surrenders the fugitive, or provides for his sur- it has stipulated that hs ivered up. That party. in the one ease, t: th who claims a right to hold the fugitive after has received him. In the othe is tho State, which claims to hold and punish the fugitive after it has re- ceived him, In both cases, the government of the United States does nothing more than to surrender him, or to provide for and cause his surrender, It is not true that in the case of a fugitive from justice, security 1 trike that the party will be tried. The set of 17% de not require that he showd even have beep indicted. He may be demanded, although he is onty char, acrime on an affidavit «worn before a magistrat State from which he has come. Neither does the sta- tute of this commonweath make any provision by which the executive of this State, when it surrendors a fugitiv from justice, is to stipulate that he shall be tried. (ikew Stat. ¢, 142. § 7,8. 9. Neither does the government of the United States when it surrenders a fugitive from justice to a forsign country, held over him its protection, until he has been tried. “Such a fugitive is not surrendered under the law of nations, but under a treaty stipulation; and in th case of the treaty with Kugland, he is to be delivered u to justice ; but that justice is to be regulated, admi nistered and dealt out to him, not according to the de mands, or the ideas, or forms of proceeding of thi t, but accord) the absolute ise him. In all these croment making the surreader und vubtedly makes it in the general faith and confidence which the comity ‘of nations requires independent governments to place in each other, that the power demauding a fugitive Will deal with him justly. But it does not ordinarily wake siipulations to secure a trial, or « particular m xt» of adininistering justice; and unless such stipulations are | made. it ean exercise no control over the r. ere inay be to a trial after tion here ix in miking the surrender which it hae stipulated to make, ix pally bound to stipulate for a trial; because it has not made such a stipulation, its omission edings final and conciusive IT think neither « 1 know of nothing to pr ut from surrendering a fagitiv to the government of ( overnme to do Fo makes theae proces instead of ministerial is true these positions It is suggested I improdabitities. that there are practical difficulties } On the other hand, it may be suggested that thore are | practical menus and provistons, weil known to bye may | by the rlave States for trying these questions of feewdom | by process instituted for the expre-« parpowe; amd th government of the Suited States, for aught that Lean see, has just as clear a constitutional right to look to one clase of pr looking to the one and coedings, eh . moure only the limited right of removal, « ! of a right whieh it obviously intends to leave to r government to adjudicate, upon the faith that it ® will do Entertaining, therefore, a proecedings are ministerig!, and that it is tent to Congress to authorize a magi yy the anthority of Congress, who ix not a make thix judicial inquiry for this special and limited me now to examine the w tice whieh edd at the bar, in order to ascertain how far yey ix a settled question, Th the prisoner has ald. perhaps wi reetness, that the question of the constitutional r of Congress to confer this authority upon an tw musgistrate, has never been direetly raised. arg J decided in any court in this 7 i c of » very recent case in the Supreme He admits, however, that the en monwealth of Penn«ylvania lnnguoge thet authorizes this } denies (hat such an effect « But it seems to me that [ an solemn declaration of opinion f find itdeclared, that that court entertalued mo dab that State magistrates may, if they choose, exercise tt authority, unless they are probibited by State h The case of Wright vs. Ilall, 5 Serg. and Rawle, 62 isan authority directly in point. The Supreme Cour of Pennsylvania in that case decided that a writ ¢ homine replegiande would not lie, to interrupt » certit cate granted by a State maglet val of tlear opinion that these u, fugitive slave, ‘Th of the Court ef Common PL wonder the law of 1793. Tn Un Martin 12 Wenslell 311, the Recorder of the eity of New York had granted a certificate, and the Supreme © tof the State decided that a writ de howine replegiande could not prevent his removal. In the case of Comm vowenlth ve. Griffith, 2 Pickering 11, 20 warrant had been weed and no magistrate bad undoriaken to wet, but the alleged fugitive hed been seized hy the agent of the Tm r manner, in the ease of lave bad been qu ation of & » Supreme | in rafor. " yosel on je to that court body of Tho | nd resteaint acon that | mterstand that the | owner, withomt process Gien vs. Hodges, ¢ sized without p was in no way | the authorities ¢1 Court of this commonwealth, on ence to this proceeding, It fs stated b both sides. that an application was me fora writ of haabeas corpus, to brine up t mas Simms upon the ground that his arre- under my warn is unlawful. for the © t came q fore me, and that the court authority to issue the warrant. we writ. 1 have not seen any report? the dre bat T presume that thie question i4 now entitled to be considered as ert tled by other authority {than my ewn 2. The second objection taken by the learned cown. eel for the prisoner {s, that thie proceeting fe a sult at common law, in which either perty has aright to de the constitution, which dvelares that “In suite at com. mon law, where the value in controversy shall exooed twenty dollars, the right of triel by jury shall be pre- served.” - T have endeavored, tn the foregoing discnesion, to chow, on the authority of the Supreme Court of the Unit- od States. om that of the Court of Pennsyiy nia, om that of Mr. Spslice thor} se commentator on the Samaen nd come views of my own, that in nisbofa rive cereonorsls and Uhat the Uberty.of tee party is not in | justice to its own subject | J here for final adjudication. PRICE TWO CENTS. Ifthis be so | the power of attorney to be “acknowledged oad as | the erew, alien to ao eebinaead Both of these w'ts comtestation adj Ican entertain no doubt that it is—this proceeding not a *yft atcommon law, in which either party can. asa matter of right, demand a trial be gc If it wore a proceeding in which the rights of parties were to “be tried for final adjucation, then [ should agree that ‘the could, a8 a matter of right, demand a trial by jury ,if it were true that, slaves are entitled to the be- orthe constitution ofthe United States, But as I tobe a preceeding of an entirely different charac- ter, which, although it invelves an inquiry judicial imits nature, is merely provided in aid of a right of removal, whieh the clainiant would have without it, under the constitution, I am of opinion that a trial jury cannot be led, and ¢ ently that this objection to the act as Gatenalle. "the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in Prigg’s ease, that the law of 17%, which also withhekl a trial by jury, is constitu tional Snall its leading provisions, it seems to me fully dixposed of this qaestion. 3. The next objection taken by the learned counsel for the prisoner is, that the transcript of # record, au- therised by the statute to be made in the State whore the claimant resides, incompetent evidence, Congress having no power to confer on Stete courts authority to take such testimony. » The argument in suppsrt of thir objection is that the exorcise of an authority to tuke testimony to be wsed in this proeceding, or to find # fact involwed in tho dewision ‘to be made, is the exercise of judi power, whickCoa- gress cannot constitutionally confer upon a State court or magistrate, In order to make the answer to this ob- jection, which satisfies me that it is wholly unfoundet, intelligible, it is nocessary to recur to the provisions of the statute, The 10th section of the stutute coutaim the following provisions:-— “ That when any person held to service or labor in any State or territory, or in the District of Columbia, shail escape therefrom the party to whom such service or la- bor shall be due, his, her, or their agent, or attorney, may upply te any court of record therein, or judge thereof, in yucation, and make satisfactory proof to such court or judge in vacation of the cseape aforesuid, and-that the per- ‘sou escaping owediservice or labor to such party; whercup- on the court shall cxuse a record to be made of the matters £0 proved, and also a general des escaping, with such produced in any other State, Territory, or Distriet in which the person so escaping may be found, aod being exhibited to any Judge, Commissioner, or other offteer authorized by the United States to cause persons escay ing froan service or labor to be delivered up, shall be hel and taken to be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of ceeape, and that the service or labor of the persoa on ing is due tu the party insuch record mentioned,’” virtue of this provision one branch of the inquiry di- by the statute to be made, before a certiticaie ix uted for removal, is directed to be na: by acourc or Judge of the State from which the fugitive has escaped. "Vhis part of the inquiry is, whether anybody, owi vice, has escaped, other branch of the inquiry, wamely, Whether the prisoner arrested here, is the person who so escaped, is directed to be made here, by the com- missioner. I sball have something to say concerning the obvious reasons for this provision, im another part of this opinion. At present it ix only necessary to say, that the objection ix answered by the view which I take of ¢ nature and charactar uf this proceeding, and by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States ia the case of Prigg; for if it is true, as the court there de clared, that State magistrates may, if they @hoose, ¢ cise the whele of this jurisdiction, find every fac voived in the inquiry, and grant # certificate upon such finding, it is surely competent to Congress to confer upou 4 State magistrate authority to exercise a part of this ju- riediction and to make a part of this inquiry. That the fading of a State muugistrate upon that part of the inqui- ry which he is authorized to make, is mude conclusive upon the commissioner here who is to find the other fact nnd todo something therein, is in striet anolagy to a cliss ct cases Where officers who are not partof the ju- diciary, are direeted to. make eertain inquiries, and’ to find certain facts whieh are to have certain legal conse quences, Whee presented to a tribunal quthorized and di- reeted to vet there T will cite a single but very im- por‘ant instance of this class of eases. A statute of this commonwealth, passed in 1838, di- rected bank ecuunissoners to be appointed by ‘the Goveenor, to examine the banks, and if they should of opinion that any banc was insolvent, or in a condition that made its further progress hazardous to the public, or that it had exceeded its powers, they were to apply to adustice of the Supreme Judicial urt, Who should roe forthwith issue an injunction to restrain the bank from further proceeding with itt busi could be had Farmer's and Me tion » watih a hearing the case of the Commonwealth vs. the anic’s Bank, (21 Pick. 542) the objec- was tuken that this law was unconstitutional, by it was an usurpation of judicial power to confi ‘ank Conuniasioners authority to find a fret ani ing, and withou y his own mind, to issue the anjuction Court overruled t jon, aud helt ure to confer autho rity upon the Bank Commissioners te find and represen to the court # state of facts, on whieh the court were t» found a present and immediate action. This is entirely analagous in principle, to what Con; have done in the present instance, They have authorized certain per- rons in another State to find a certain faet, on whieh thy commissioner here is to act, when it is properly certitied to him. 4. The next objection taken by the learned counsel for the prisoner to the constitutionality of this act o Cengrere ie, that the prisoner was not prevent at the taking of the evidence before the State Judge, and Ine 'y to cross-examine the witnesses, and rvidence is incompetent. rvoner is the identical por Jin this transeript of a reco owing service —a wholly independ snt of the record, that he is—his absence from the State where the evidence ix Wreeted by law to be taken, so that he could not be served with if he was entitled to it, was in hisown mn mentioned and have no pow: der of fugith Jduty whieh belong ewelusively to the States T aight rest here, wholly upon the authority of that } igh tribuual which istupposed to settle the construction | of the coustitution of the United States. But as all these questions have been pressed upon me, jn a manner ehallen briefly pendent jnigment, [ «ball as long bee whieh ary to look i on which thie clause of the ¢ Jer to seein ita purpose which KJ See oniplished ouly by the national covernment very words of Un » neem to me manifestly to diseloss | rach a purpose, ‘They deelare that these pers not he dise feom their service or labor int new of any dead re, that | whatever may be ° tof personal liberty, that lew shall not be applicable | State of Goor: in the limite of © OF Owner, ty retain nim- whieh the Inw to @ person who owes servieo of labor in amply because he has escaped wit mmonwenlth; bat that the mas eh werviee ue paired the right to that eerviee or lab of his own State has given him 1 1 otitution must be ae Jem ns te the principle that the law ot apply to a fugitive from service due in another Stave. It deeiares that each a fugitive ~ shail b ivered up on claim of the party to whom » or labor is de.” Now, undoubtedly, tht quest . upon this injum he to be dehvered ap Wut is itn tion whiek is to prevent amy St diseharging the obligation to render to say that the te, whe law, If left to « thas obligation, ix the entrusted With the p conse e Te in, to my m that the constitution © things. and at the «om ally free to do them, if they Teaver them to exercise thelr own ¥ do them or to refrain from them. Th Uhat pe Stave shall pi ipa any bi he ¢ There are pr th ligation. « enperndeAl to th of giving it an imimedtint delivery’ of the pereon ow on to whona it is dae iy rdded to prohibition, to enivet whom the prohibition tteerf is a vary. It come to me that whea the ited the laws and merulationa of thy States fro ting to sieehancr the tgon of eervien, and in prevent ¢ ration, proaided that detivers * #8 means, to cast, wt be nt duty of causing that gelivery, upum the prwer whieh can alone eflectuelly accempiish it—tho general govern cent. To thie \ have only t that the question of t fof Comgrena to lgt: the subject of the of Argithee slaves, is usjvely settled by Supreme Cougs of she United states im the case of Frigg, and apom thelr authority it may be safely lett to rest One Sther ohicetiom, of a technical eharncter. eetnains to le 7 fied under the seal of some legal o@leer or court of the | nesses conversed with him separately, and both itory.in which the sameanay be executed,” | him the question whether he ne oD, To i Btate or Terri | §® The chiettion is, that a ‘public is not a | he gave an account of himself utterly inconsistent with, “egal officer.’ within the mearing tle statute. Iam | the account which he gave to Barnett, and with the of opinion that he is, A notary public, by the nature | othe facts sworn to by Barnett and Bacon. Of his office, and aecording to the! law and-ssage of all |. Sle told Ames that he was born in Florida; that he wae a B civilized States, is a general certifying offifsr, to the | not a slave; that he had a mother and sister written nets of individuals, intended to he uy inan- and came onto see them; that bis father La) all other country than that where they are exeeuted, Ilis | free when he wassix months old; that he had. authority for this purpose, does not depend w the Savannab bat twelve or thirteen months; that he Iceal Jaw, but upon the nature of his office, ax underxtiod | his free papers there; and that, he eame sway, roses thorities as and adsaitted everywhere ; aud in this respect, he dita | he had been reported to the aut a essentially from many other magistrates. In the case of which made him liable to pay $100 fine. Osptain Lord Kinnaird v. Lord Saltoun, 1 Maddox's Ch. R. it was | dridge says, that he asked him who kia master was; thas held, that if a deed is formerly exceuted in a foreign } at first he suid he was not exactly a slave, but thet be country. amd the oxeention is anthentieuted by # notary | eould get nothing satisfuetory out of him, and that the mblic, this ix sufftcient proof to entitle it to be read: | did not give the name of his master, Hemade no de® uf # authentication was before the pare of @ foreign | Bite wen to the question why he came on board town, it is not received without proof of his office. This is the whole of the evidenee; and I must say, i I now come fe the evidenee which has been offered here, t® extablialy the right of the claimant to remove from this district YwomegSime, the prisoner at the bar. ate to bo citablished affirmatively by Jesvee no room whatever for a doubt that the before me ix the identical person deseribed: escaped from Giorgia, while owing service Two tions. Potter, If there is any truth whatever im story the claimant in every case under this act, 1. which he told to Ames on board the vessel, one part of ome person, owing service or labor to claimant, eseaped | it may sensonably be expected to te as true as enother: weidvct One past of it is that he wax born in Floridi, made free when six months old, Another part of that his mether and sister ore in Boston, and that cume on to cee them, Where are they ? from the Stetw where pach service or Inbor was due. 2 | That the prisoner unde? arrest is the person who'so e} | caped. The statute describes o particular mote in which the | “ Grst of these prepositions may be proved, although it | not produced” In thix matter of such great i does not confine the elaimemt to that particular form of | are there none'wmong the colored women of this proof. If, however, the claimant sees fit to make use of Who ean be broveht forward to confirm him? None. this mode of proving the fart of an escape by a person’ | # not to be iumgined thet his mother and sister ate owing servieo, the eidence, wien put into the form re- | met produced here for uny other reason thwn because quired by the statute; is conclusive of that fet, but of } they are not, and never were, any where but where the nothing beyond it. ‘The secon* proposition, involving: | witaeases left them, in the city of Savanuad; awaiting the identity of the prisoner with the person deseribed to | this young man’s revern. have escaped, remaink to be proved by independent and | Having thus stated the conciwsions to whic have satisfactory evidence, and is open tooontestation as long — c@Rne apon all questions raised im this case, I hate asa doubt can exist ‘about it. | to add that I can entertain no dost whatover thet i¢ ‘The provision of the statute which prescribes the made | my duty to grant to the slaimant the certificate whioks fa which a claimant may make this conelusive proof of | he deinaadk, the fact of an escape by a person owing service to him, | I feel it to he a public drt7. in closing this decision te 2 a ption of the person so | p¥enient certainty as may be; and | @ transeript of such record, authenticated by the attes- | tation of the elerk and of the seat of the said covet, being | has already, been read. expresw hese my deep obligetion to tht” Marshal’ of Tt is not at all difficult to seo the reasor for the intro | United Staterand to the Meshal of the sity: of duction of this provirion into a now law, dédigned to fur- | and the yarlnd officers serviay under tLens; for the ¢ nish a more effectual remedy than the old eve, for the re- | ciency amd prvgence with whevh they have dixcharged: Curtion of fuxitives trom service, | Congrew! evidently | heir respectire duties conneet*t with or eceasioned bg considered that from the great extent of the fnion, there | this hearing. murt be vast multitudes of cases in which te owners of | [Fromtie Boston B. 2) fugitives could not personally leave home, or send in per- | The hour of signed for the son the witnesses whe might be able to prove the fact that’) fiaal decision in case Simms, a very lange: some one had escaped who owed service, It wus theres | crowd made application for admissi*n to the covet nceewary to make some provision by which-(his fact | whieh was shortly Sifed'to suffocatiom Hon. Levi Wood? ld be proved, without transporting witnesses from | Ymey,one of the J@etloer of the Ursted States Supreme nion to the other; for the faet ties at | Court, who granted tif writ of habeas ewpus, took his seme the foundation, in every case, of tho right to arrest and | forthe further hearing: amd decision ofthe matter, Aw Timove an all ged fugitive. 5 the presiminary step :>— This provision was made in the section above citsd; | 8. K, Sewull, Eaq.. moved: the appointment of » persom and in my mind there is great security to Liberty in its | to serve » writ of persona? rephevin (de horwne requisitions, In the frst place, it is no inconsiderable | om Simms in consequencr of the Marches of dee Urcleet safeguard to have # judieial inquiry into the fact, before | states boing a party tothe wit now before court. the clint sets forth in pursuit, that some one who Seth J mses sail lee appeared as counsel far owed hin service has escaped. It has a minifest ten- | Simins, as the ward of the claimant, Mr, Poteer. dency to increase the difienltics of setting up fictitions | Bo I. Custis, Esq., said, bere the motion was a 4 claims, It furnishes to the tribunal ina wistied: to read the returmo€ the United weareoear a free State, called upon to make an arrest, the sutief in the matter of serviug the writ for the arrest of tribunal of the vi | Simms for asswult with intent to Kill Asa O: Bul ed the fact that there was a certain slave, amd | while in the service of a presept issued by one of the slave has escaped. Any one who his boon | United States Commissioners called upon in a free State to iasne process, to arrest one | de them read the following papers -— of these fugitives, must have felt the force and value of see ane In the next plaee, the statute, by requiring the claim Dietetok6 fratre ate on 4 ra, ry 4 is ‘oust of Massachusetts, April 11, 1961, ant to make 2 deseription of the parson wh he ayshas | y. chatee Doreen dee Montel ekthe Gallen creaped. and by requiring that description to be made | 1, Charley Devens, dr. Marshal of the United we! April 1 bei metter of record, hay furnished to the tribunals ia a f% | n - A : car sina sinst | Certify and returm that F have the body of t imposition Ue inictaken Av written. dectription. ade | Sins. now here, being the thie and place mentioned im with ail the convenient certainty that the case admits | the erder of the Hon, Levi Woodbury, one of the Asse ie too at a time and piace, when und where | Cite Justices of the #upreme Court of the United Stat cannot aleely adapt it to the exigencies of | ane de farther castlty daclar wd return, tah sins the arrest which he intends to make, is placed before the | the former return by me mua Galsvet court or commissioner he as the very ground work to me two certain paper writings, truc coples whetrof are | hereto annexed as part of this return, and: I do now hold ef the case, Inthe third place, the statute, by making » t > the roord conclusive of the fact of eseape, snd that the | —— eye prey sanders doe allthe serviee of the party exeaping was due to the claimant, | subject to all the duties which by law are ved ‘The | therefrom, CHARLES DEVENS, da. U. 8. Marshal. makes the recorded doseription also conclusive. claimant cannot alter it,or amend it, by making one | ruE CERTIFICATK POR THE REMOVAL. § [Se hair white or He eomes with’ a record in his | 7 ; pepe ibe. Unive Staves or Amenioa, Hand, and to that record ho f« bound, as soom as he pre | ‘ . sents it to the commixsfoner. He must bring the person | [Set] it has Fmagect fey cppeal tans ap Be arrested within that deseription, to the satisfaction of | (ranseript of a record amade and. duly certified by. the the mind of the conunissioner, by competent and inde- pendent proof, by the opportunities of Inspec Honorable Henry BR. Jackson, Judge of the Superiog oye Court of the Exstern District ‘of the State of Georgia, amination, and comparison, or he fails to make out bis {hat on'or abeat ive 2d day of Pebrusey lest ron wg d care. 4 i Si ore ds of ab ‘On the othér hand, the making the recont conclae | {rein Wp tends. tslobstngens we sive, ux to the deseription of the party who has eseapeds | aber asa slave by James Potter, a citizen of Chatham caw work no prejudion to the party arrested; for if ie 4 county, within auld Stave. of (eorgia, and that the sabi not the party intended to be deseribed, it i of no conse- Phemas Simms was of « mulatto color. about five feet sam quenee to him whether the description be strie: or seven inches in height, stout and well pr Tate or not; and if he is the party intended to with black hair, rimilar to a negro, fluent "o quick im cribed,any mis deseription must only increase t speech, intelligent, with flue teeth and without whis! of his escape, Whatever others may say, or think, therefore, of this provision of the statute, I feek quite confident that there is no right minded man in this country who has been, or is likely to be, called upon (o discharge judicial duties under it. and who has not felt, or will not be likely to feel inexpressible satisfaction and relief that the law bas been made in this particu- lar what it ix and that the suid Thomas Simms on or nbout the twenty second day of February eseaped from the said Slate of Georgia, and whereas it hath also beew before me in the oaths of credible witnesses that Simms, a mulatto colored man, now in the custody of Charles Devens, Jr. Eayvire, Marchal of the U: ssa peng apg of Masenchusetts, on a warrant seued by me for hix apprehension, is the samme Thomas Let me sxypore, for a moment, that the statute had | Livin tention danbioets din the aforesaid transerip® no such record, or, that, being provide. it | Gea record, and. th etified as owing. sorvies oF were not resorted to, but witnesses are sont here t0¢% tudor to the raid Jumes Potter; and. whereas it hath ale positions which are involved in the | been duly proved before me that John B, Bacon, of the 4 the warrant niust be gronted, | city of Savannah, in te county of Chatham Seat wi any eve that the first ee yey mn, vig» | of Niscaie aforesaid, Reguive, te the duly aiesetl that there was a certain slave and that hé has oseaped, mt and uttornay of the seid: Jamen Potter, to remove 1 Le established. In the next place, the witucaw’ the said Thomas Stine from the: Buste of Mesnebesctae | who are to establish thix proposition are abso to sWoat hack to the State of Georgia, now, therefore Take i she i malty of the peso Fae age eng 2s, —- certify that the said dames Potter, or his aforesaid: 1» both propositions # 6 al has bev . 0 | made.” It te meniteet, that # thin form of procsed. Ot attorney, dohe B. Baron, te suthesieed to remaus the , but that it is a power | said Thomas Sims from the State of Massachusetts, beaks, to the said State of Georgia. pursuant to the act of Com gress passed on the 13th day of September, A. Dy led “an aot to amend 1 ewpylomentary to the nlitied © an act respecting fugitives from justice aad persons escaping fromthe service of their matters,” ap- ing, the opport tion, in all the infinite variety of shades, are vastly ia- upon the wit use there is no a! on the question wa to which that can be brought, ‘The w pitheir proved Feb twelfth, 1 1 buadred dese ri the party whom they aan | slave, to the appearsnee of the party uw Given under my lend and seal, at Poston, in the Die may do this wilfully or unconsciously, but wh trict of Massachusetts, on the eleventh day of ia dene from corrupt desig th the year 1851. Signed.) GHORGK T, CURT, gerness or zeal, It fis very critical question of dei arise from the blending of be tbe appalling, Mut th { proceeding which ke and logically distinet, and ma heck upon the other; and as th One of the Cominissioners appointed. by the Cireait ‘curt of the United States for the firet Cireuit and Dis- tof Massachusetts, to take bail and affidavits in civil: cuties. CERTIFICATION OB THE COMMISSIONDE’S MITHORITY, { u Srares on Arnos, » Usiree Srarme, fonar ~ i elork of the is the reding for the claimant ; xpect, ax th ainly is to hope, that it will generally, Hf not universally, be re worted to In the ense presented to cord in thir eourt that at the Ocsber term, holden at Boston, in raid dictriot, on Monday, the claimant has uly autho e me, the agent of th transcript of » ree | Geated. made nd before the lion. Henry KR. Jack- | fifteenth day of Oetober. in the year of our Lord * Superior Court of the Bast hundred and thirty-right, before the honorable triet of the State of Georgia, from whieh it ap; F tory, associate justices. and the honorable Johu Dat district judge, George T. Curtis, Kea, was appointed a comunivsioner ef Thix court to thke bail and wits om vil causes, sogording to the etatate in euch cases made and provided. In testimony whereo, | have hereto sab. seribed my peme. and affixed the seal of said court, thin arch. in the your u and fifty-one. fo the seve Independenes of the United Stotos (Sealed ) ISAAC O' BARNES, Clerk. APIBDAVIT OF ‘THT ATTORNEY OF SIMMS. 1. John BY nak, in the State of Georgia, torney of ra) on or about the 2 day of F + escaped from the there was n ee rtain pe tomas Potter, inthe State of Georg and that he e«vped from Uhat State on or about the of Febroary let It remains only to inquice whether the claimant has | eoond propoditson, namely, bar. with the prrcon seaped from Georgina Phe evidence op evidence of t ufficiently established the the identity f the prisoner at ¢h ras having © “0 yond «ay, that Ihave reason to ap- “i fugitive will be resened by free weston. before he wa be taken beyomd the prisoner's monwealth, ia which he has how we deseription of hum farnished by the ree 4 (Signed) OUN B BACON. © of witneses who knew the privom District of Macanchurett« Beston, April LI. 1861,—Sab- ax the slave of James Potter, 3. Faets seribed and «worn to ae RF Hieceerr, Commie. Witnesses, which tend to correberate the prev sioner of the District Court of the United States for the mony Maceachasetts District The witnesses whe ewear directly to the prisoner's ‘owall. ofter the oding of the abore papers, sai 6 & preendence Th mas objects on the ground hori Lo appear as counsed. identity are two; Edwerd Barnett and John B. Bae Rarnett tertifies Unat C ast tea months, in Sa “imme; that he we Judge Woodbury — that he isthe ouly person a - Mr. The may ir honor. tn ate eens tier Mr. Sewnll—1 horixed to appear fir The nee acked the prisoner if he was @ sla w.* . and the riplt of my client to a jury trial te @ great constitational rr e owe this objection. 1 by that he wre vnter, who Li nd that ana that he belonged ps ten oF twelve r to pay bi amount of about $10 p es that be knew th ng Ree and sister in . as anid he came here with a vested fare The otter witness, Hacon, 1s the aera Pan ih ery A in the certitiente. turppear for Simms om Be- here to make th ° wE Me. Potter, | balf of hin guardian prison Seiad | t, Mr ‘Thome read the Com. ‘that he a tht | Misioner'« certifieate as abowe, ac his authority to apprae nary; th ee) for Shame eenerally i thas te The Court themapon devided that Me eppeared than tis ’ a ne = wages, from | Thomas had the better right to appear. From the ori woh ge Show thay were paid. te ir. Petice,| f atheman had éid of slavery, he showal judge ee Weing ne out, beth walk tees repbaneae ad no exietenes except in Weory. He sonkd not eo cow ad te aon for his wares: and chat | older; it Waa a fact, aud he thanked tod that eoing hie mot £ aS, ath. aan «| elite tts yet @ part of uh ates, to | (Loud aad general epploase by stapling of food, hy the, es Uaceenh sudience, Silowed this remark, which was sap | pressed by the United States Marspad calling «pow those, {| Present to preserve oruer. | a ne ove Chacles Sumner, Foq., now argee and olgaeted, ta. her son was | | returw of Marshal Devens in the matter of the rig werteut prayed for, as ineudielent ; the hae ' bad oes hove 2 tated the day when he nade service of the, ye wOLHOT eid was to beg hh ave State, f wheth Roth P g " teks fore a Wt these _witnesten any entiveiy wnianpeaeho | [0 Py et Soe aa rae eg Lt se ym ie aS ~s rere bana - ae y | et ferth cuftcwmuy, Me. Sumucr went om to. etme foo al ae xambnation, 3 avecrtain | om the id of Apeil a wageaut waa tadetan - ‘ vy en At interest in the cesuit | Of Thowes sim i & fagitive, amd on the Suh wat whether they Wave eng Goating seen ot cithor of | ent War returved. Ga the 7th, « criminal warrant wee of tals proceeding. ond It dee wet a Uy Mr. Hallett, a United States Conmmiedonor, fox therm b D attend hae Veen smarts a feloniows eesault on Asa Q, Butman; on the same day we or sbeke thelr testimony thet © Warrant was lencd for the ame offenes, fran » hound te yield to i uphesitating and implicit contd ‘The other evidence, whieh cones few the master tee of the crew of the brig M. & J. ©. Gilmore. proves Stpte magistrate om complaint of Mr Charles L vide of which wen wet sevarncd by oad Maghal t then stated the following propwsitions, t i eoome be Mr. Swi beyond the protebility of doubt the prisoner at t which bh Ihe shoud 2 ot e rom § oh. seetetrd on board the vessel, e id argue “ Subows tie iknow eae of the master or crew, in Feb- 1. The under the warrant fee: Ne ge c Bail, one «f the ores, tastified that he saw | stoner Are void, beeause of tho Hlegality gg Em in Savannah, five or six days before the | © 4, slongside; that the steward asked him if rid ars ° cook, and he ot ee) he een! he privoner tr tthe it had ine wie we Deaton light, when he came out of ils hiding | | 3, The delay in serving the The warrant from Commisioner Cit le warrant ym « civil character, and when aw confliot the to be inevidenee, show that the warrant Fhtridge: the captain, that he caw him fiew | & ioe Valk wh ot Boa i, bute — to after the yeooed arrived la port) and Ames, one oo ite ser 4 cana