Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-02-27

Igoyernmsnf.
I'd. The writ Of kabsas corpas al sat's,
facisndum, = when q prisoner nasn has
| Judgment against him in an action, andthsa
| plaintiff is des;rous TO bring him up ~
| socae superior court to charge ham VIA
process Of execution. ia.
This case can never occur ID tne eouas
of the United States. One. court never
awards execution on the Judgment OF ano.
ther. Our whole jusidicai system forbes es
Liz,
sd. Az. prosequendum, testRsanduH,,
! deli5erandum. &c. !" which issue when u
is necessary 70 rene Y 2 prisoner, 10 order
70 prosecute, or bear testimony, IN any
l%eeour,. OF. to be tried in the proper Ju-
I risaicsion wherein the fass was commit
Led"
This writ might unqneationably be en-
| ployed to bring up a prisoner to bear tes-
I simony in a court, consistently with the
most limited construction OF the Wofds
in the act of congress !; but the power
| to bring a person up that he may &c tfied
10 tie proper jarisdicilon is undefssoea
TO be. the very question now before thS
curt
4,h. aud last, The ccmmon.wris ad fast
endum ct recipiendusn, Which ISSUES cut
| Of any Of the courts of Wessrninster.hal!,
| when a person is sued in 10 ne inferior u.
risdietion, and is ,desisousto ~Ssnlovesne
! action into the superior court, command.
ing the inferior Judges TO prcdace shs body
| of the defendant, together with the day 4
cause of his caption and dstsiner (when
III. wit is frequently aeno..irated az IA.
beas corpus cuGn causa) 70 do ard resstpe
whatever the kin IS court shall consider in
| that Behalf. Thiswrit IS gsaatablc~af com
men right, without any motion IL court,
asd L instantly supercedss all proceedings
in the court below"
Can a solemn grant OF power to a court
! TO award 4 writ be considered as sppllea-
! bic TO q ease in which thar writ, if issaa.
bic at all, issues by law wiskaus the leave
OF the court
I, would not be diGcsls to demonstrate
| thatthe writ of habeas corpus cum csusa
eannos be the particular wri. contemplated
by The legislature IN the section under con.
sheraton; bat i, will be sufficient 10 90.
serve generally thar the same act prescfi5es
a different mode for bringing no The
courts of the u. S.. suits. brought in a state
court agains. a person having a right 10
! c,aiq the Jurisdiction of che courts OF ,he
iU. S He may, on his first appearance,
file his petition aud authenticate the fact,
upon which the cause is ipso fQcta removed
l4in.o the courts Of ,he4U. y.
The only power thea, which en,hls il
smited construction woasd be granted oy
the section under consideration, would be
that of issuing wri,s ct ha6sas sorpus aa
tesfifcanahum. The section itss'f, proves
shat 1tsssis was no, the intention Of the !egls
lasure. 1t concludes with the. following
~proviso /: " Tha, ,wri,s OF habeas cerpus.
shasl in DO case extend 10 prisoners 10 gao's
ualess where they are 10 custody under or
by color Of the authority Of the o. s. or
are committed for trial before some cou,t
of the sane, or are necs ssary to be hro'i
into court 10 testify
This proviso ex,ends to she whole sec
.ions Is limits the powers previously
granted to ,ils courts, because 1t spccihes
a case it's particularly applicable TO the
use Of the power by courta where the
{ person is necessary to broughtviato court
to testify. That couslructlon cannot &c a
fair one which would makr:thc legislature
except from the operation ola P~roviso,
limiting the express grant sf a power,
the whole power intsaded to be grant,
ed.
From t.his review Of the extent OF ths
power awarding wriss Of habeas corpus,
if the secsianb be construed IN Us restricted
! sense !; from a comparison OF The nature
Of the wri, which the courts Of she Uoited
/ States would, on that view Of the subject
be enabled &c issue !. from acemparison OF
The No ger so craated.With the other parts