United States v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 01 February 1795 |
| Parties | The United States v. Hamilton |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The prisoner had been committed upon the warrant of the District Judge of Pennsylvania, charging him with High Treason; and being now brought into court upon a Habeas Corpus, Lewis alledged, that there was not the slightest ground for the accusation brought against the prisoner, who had been committed, without ever having been heard, and without knowing the name of any witness that had been examined, or the scope of any deposition that had been taken, against him: And he moved, that the prisoner should either be discharged absolutely, or, at least, upon reasonable bail.
Rawle (the attorney-general of the district) admitted, that in the single case of the prisoner, there had not been a hearing before the District Judge, previously to the commitment; but when the state of the country is recollected, the number of delinquents, and the urgency of the season, he presumed, that this circumstance (independent of the established character of the Judge) would not be ascribed to a want of vigilance, or a spirit of oppression. He insisted, however, that the discretion vested in certain judges, relative to a commitment for crimes, by the 33rd section of the Judicial Act (I Vol. Swift's Edit. p. 72) having been exercised by the District Judge, on such depositions as satisfied him, this court, having merely a concurrent authority, can only revise his decision in one of two cases, —- 1st. The occurrence of new matter; or, 2ndly. A charge of misconduct; -neither of which is pretended. But, after stating the general character of the insurrection, he read several affidavits, with a view to establish the prisoner's agency in it; and concluded with urging, that, if the prisoner was released at all, it should be on giving satisfactory bail to take his trial in the Circuit Court. 4 Bl. Com. 296. 2 Hawk. 176. (n.)
Lewis examined the affidavits produced against the prisoner, to show, that although he attended at several meetings of the insurgents, his deportment, upon those occasions, was calculated to restore order and submission to the laws: and he added the affidavits of several of the most respectable inhabitants of the western counties, in testimony of the propriety of the prisoner's conduct throughout the insurrection.
The Court, after holding the subject for some days under advisement, directed the prisoner to be admitted to bail, himself in the sum of 4000 dollars, and two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gerstein v. Pugh 8212 477
...of the Fourth Amendment, see Ex parte Bollman, supra;16 Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch 448, 2 L.Ed. 495 (1806); United States v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17, 1 L.Ed. 490 (1795), and there are indications that the Framers of the Bill of Rights regarded it as a model for a 'reasonable' seizure. See Drap......
-
State ex rel. Rowe v. Ferguson
...adoption of the Fourth Amendment, see Ex parte Bollman, supra; Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch 448, 2 L.Ed. 495 (1806); United States v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17, 1 L.Ed. 490 (1795), and there are indications that the Framers of the Bill of Rights regarded it as a model for a 'reasonable' seizure. S......
-
Ex parte Moran
... 144 F. 594 Ex parte MORAN. No. 59. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. March 1, 1906 ... (Syllabus by the ... Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch, ... 448, 451, 2 L.Ed. 495; U.S. v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17, ... 1 L.Ed. 490; Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 39, 5 L.Ed. 391. In ... Ex parte ... ...
-
King v. McLean Asylum of the Massachusetts General Hospital, 95.
...may, after the writ issues, be entitled in behalf of the United States, as was done in the first one before the supreme court. U.S. v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17. that, if the entitling was of effect, we would have here a proceeding in behalf of the United States, over which its courts would clea......