About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Thomas Moore, Executor of Richard Eels, Plaintiff in Error, v. The People of the State of Illinois U.S. 13 (1852)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0230 and id is 1 raw text is: DECEMBEIR TERM, 1852. Moore v. The People of the State of Illinois. it to reverse its judgnment, in a matter where the law authorized it to judge. In the case before us, the power of deciding on the sultieiey of the affidavit, and the amount of bail, is a part of the judicial power of the court. It has exercised this power, and passed its judgment. We do not mean to say that this judgment is in any respect erroneous. But, assuming it to be so, this court cannot, by mnandamuns, command them to reverse it. The writ has never been extended so far, nor ever used to control the discretion and judgment of an inferior court of record acting within the scope of its judicial authority. There is no -round, therefore, for the rule under the act of Congress. The application under the Maryland act of 1715, is equally untenable. The provision in that act relied on in support of the motion, was never held in Maryland to apply to any thing but the bail-bonds to be taken by the sheriff in certain cases, and never influenced the decision of the courts as -to the amount of bail to be required when the defendant was brought into court. But it is unnecessary to speak of that act, or of'the construction it received in the courts of Maryland; because the right of the plaintiff in the Circuit Court to demand bail depends altogether upon the act of Congress. And if there is any discrepancy between this act and the act of Assembly of 1715, the act of Congress must govern, and is a repeal pro.tanto of the Maryland law. The rule to show cause is therefore refused. THO.MNAS MOORE, EXECUTOR OF RICHARD EELS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. THE PEOPLE O' THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. A State, under its general and admitted power to define and punish offences against its own peace and policy, may repel from its boiders an unacceptable population, whether paupcr.. criminals, fugitives, or lilberated slaves: and, consequentlv, may Punish her citizens and othrs who thwart this policy, by harboring, secreAing, or in any way assi~ting such fugitives. It is no objection to such lecilation that the offender may be liable to punishment under the act of Congress tbr the same acts, when injurious to the owner oft the fugitive slave. The cace of' Prigg v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (16 Peters, 539,) presented the following question% which were decided by the court: 1. That under and in virtue of the Constitution of the United States, the owner of a slave is clothed with entire authority in every State in the Union, to seize and re- capture his slave, wherever he can do it without illegal violence or a breach of the peace. 2. That the government of the United States is clotheo with appropriate authority and functions to enforce the delivery, on claim of the owner, and has properly ex- ercised it in the act of Congress of 12th February, 1793. VOL. XIV. 2

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most