Ex parte Arch
On an writ of Habias Corpus.
The Return in this Case presents a question which
I am incompetent to try. It ceases to be a question of personal
restraint alone. It becomes a controversy in which a right to
personal liberty is alleged on the one hand, and a claim of
property on the other,. This last is beyond my jurisdiction.
The Amendments, to the Constitution of the United StatesUnited States
Arch and, the organic, Law Sect, 14. require a Jury,, before
a question of property can be decided. If the Habeus Corpus
Law therefore expressly called upon me to apply this remedy
in this case I should refuse to do so, because in so doing
I must disobey the paramount authority of the Constitution
and the Organic Law. But in fact I do not understand
the Law as requiring any such thing. The legislation on
the same day passed a law providing the remedy of persons
claimed as slaves, & I therefore have no doubt they intended
this law for the relief, of persons not so claimed. Such is the
spirit of Magna Charta, which gives it's, protection only to free,
men - It's language is â nulles Lebu Homo,;â Excluding Excluding villians,
in EnglandEngland-as in like manner it would exclude slaves here.
The true, question which this case on the merits
would present would be "whether the Boy Arch on a day action,