It is nugatory to say, that when an alleged fugitive has reached his claimant’s domicile, he may there petition for freedom. Should he do so, it would be an independent and original proceeding, instituted under _another_ government. Not only would the jurisdiction be different, but the character of the litigants would be changed,--plaintiff for defendant, and defendant for plaintiff. The old case is not to be reheard, but a new one tried. Indeed, a very intelligent writer on this subject has queried whether the certificate of the commissioner may not be pleaded as an estoppel. I say, then, that, in effect, the commissioner, by this act, has _original_, _final_, and _exclusive_ jurisdiction of a “case” “in law,” “arising under the constitution and laws of the United States.” This is the very function of judges and courts. This is the identical power which the constitution of the United States vests in judges who are to be nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, to hold office during good behavior, and to be compensated by fixed salaries. Again, the act consigns a man to bondage, without crime, on evidence which he has had no opportunity to controvert. The claimant must prove three facts before the commissioner,--1st, That the person named in the warrant owes the claimant service; 2d, That he has escaped; 3d, Identity. Now, according to the act, the first two points,--the facts of owing service and of escaping,--may be proved behind the respondent’s back. This proof may be procured against the alleged fugitive without any notice to him, actual or constructive; without the possibility of his encountering it, or disproving it, however false it may be. If this be not depriving a person of his “liberty” “without due process of law,” what can be? Why not make the whole case provable behind the man’s back,--in another state,--a thousand miles off,--and spurn the forms of justice, after having spurned its substance? This binding of a man by evidence obtained without his knowledge, is unknown to the common law, and abhorrent to it. It is never permitted, not even to deprive the worst man of the humblest right. Our laws save the rights of all parties under disability. Who is under so great a disability as he who knows nothing, and can know nothing, of what is going on against him? Notwithstanding the constitution declares that “full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state,” yet it has been held that a judgment obtained in another state, without notice, shall not prejudice the party against whom it was rendered. Such an act violates the first principles of justice. All securities for the life, liberty and property of us all, are swept away if such principles can be established.