Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/815

 UNITED STATEB V. HAHDEN. 803 �DiCK, D. X In this case the jailer of this county informs the court that he has in his custody the defendants, who were delivered to him by the marshal without any warrant of commitment, and he requesta the court to make an order authorizing him to keep said defendants in his prison. �The marshal informs the court that said prisoners were under proper warrants oommitted to jail in Henderson county for the want of bail required by a commissioner after a preliminary examination bef ore him ; and without any warrant they had been transported to this county for trial in this court. The marshal requests instructions as to how he shall act in such cases, as they are of frequent occur- rence, and he never has a warrant authorizing transportation, but he has always regarded it as his duty to have such prisoners in court for trial. �As it is important that there should be connection, uniformity, and regularity in all criminal proceedings, I deem it proper to deliver a written opinion upon the questions presented by the jailer and the marshal in this case, and also upon some other subjects which have been called to my attention by United States commissioners. In doing 80 I will briefly state some of the powers and duties of com- missioners as examining and committing magistrates. The circuit court is authorized by statute to appoint as many commissioners in the district as it may deem necessary ; and when so appointed they should exercise the powers which are or may be expressly conferred upon them by law. They are not strictly officers of the circuit court, but exercise somewhat independent powers. They may be controlled by the court by general rules and by the mandatory writs by which courts of superior jurisdiction can control the action of courts and ofl&cers of inferior jurisdiction and powers. The forms and mode of procedure before commissioners are not expressly marked out and defined in any statute of the United States. �Section 1014, Eev. St., in conferring criminal jurisdiction upon such ofiicers, declares that proceedings before them shall be agree- ably "to the usual mode of process" in the state where they are appointed. We may well infer that it was the intention of congress to assimilate all proceedings for holding persons accused of crime to answer before a court of the United States to the proceedings had for similar purposes by the laws of the state where such court is held. We must therefore look to the laws of this state to see what powera and duties are imposed upon justices of the peace, and what are the ��� �