Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-04-29
DOMESTIC.
IMPORTANT JUDICIAL DECISION.

IFROM NILES WEEKLY REGISTER.I
The State IF Mdrylamd VS.. Thomas Rmte,.,
Esq. acting as marshal IF the Naaylaad
district
BLAND, Judgc.-This case has been
brought before this court by ,,wrii of Ina
beas corpus, directed 10 Thomas Rutter,
esq. acting as marshal of the district of
Maryland, commanding him TO have the
body of Joseph Almeida before this court.
together with the cause of bis captionand
detention. la obedience to which he has
returned, that he detains Aimeida by viz
tue of warrant issued by Thomas w.
Griffith, a justice OF The peace OF the State
of Maryland la aud for the BODY of Bal
tmore county, OF which TIE following is
copy:
Whereas inform alton. upon oath has been
given to me, that Joseph Almeida, citizen of
the United States, has been engaged in cruz
ing ana capturing the property of the 5nbecJs
OF the King Of spain. and has taken a cnnnis-
sisn fr0ma priure or state with whom The King
of Spain is Mt war. 10 set IA pTiyafeer against
the subjects of the said King of Spain :lvhicl,
act is, by the treaty between the q. States
and the King of Spain, an act or piracy: Won
are, therefore, hereby required 10 arrest the
said Joseph AlfaeidN, stor the said offence &.
hii. keep safe. so tha, you hate his body before
she judges OF the cIrciit court OF the United
States for the district of MarvIand on the
first day of May next, 10 be dealt with accor-
din. TO lars ,.nd Tor So doing, this allallbe your
settrsent autsr-i,v.
TivcR uncr my es-:- ~ d. = :
April. 1871.
THOMAS W. GRIFFITH, lis.
To Thomas Rattey, Esq.
Marshal of Alaryland district"
The petition Of Alineida, PRAYING 10 be
relieved 5v habeas corpus, was presented
to Inc during the last short recess Of this
court, and concciving that the case was
likely 10 give rise to some questions of
great importance, | therefore, made the
writ returnable 20 court.
have always felt, as have heretofore
had occasion to express, the greatest re-
luctance 10 entertain Jurisdiction in any
case, which was likely 10 lead To conflict
between the judicial power OF this State
aud that OF the Union-But, when neces-
sity presses such cases upon me, and
there is no alternative, | must endeavouT
10 act In a manner becoming NV station;
| for in such cases, however difficult or
painful the duty nay be, feel that am
bound to make an effort TO surmount the
difficulty, and to discharge the disagreed
bic task.
As an arrest, or a commitment, or q
trial, pre-supposes an authority, power, &
jurisdiction twill, therefore, be necessa-
| question relative TO jurisdiction. For, if
the judicial officers Of the State cannot
| have any jurisdiction whatever, invested
| in them by Congress, in any criminal
case, IT is evidently useless 10 enquire
whether there be such proof Of criminals
| ~, tor which the accused NAV or NAV moi
h committed fortriai, before the proper
| tribunal of the United States. | shall.
| therefore, lay aside all tIIe exceptions that
Lave been taken TO the warrant Of com
| initDent because, there can be odoubi
/ hat II the judicial functionaries of the
STATE have been constltutionaliv invested
| with Jurisdiction, in eases Of this sort. by
! the SD section Of the act Of Congress OF
| the 18th September, 1889 and II aopears
| from the whole return, that the laws oil
! the nation have been violated, this cotnt
would take care To- re-commit the ac.
cused with due degree OF legal formali
~.
AS TO The legality Of this courts enter.
| timing jurisdiction IN any way, in thi.
case, circumstanced as ii now IL, IL will bt
sufficient to observe, that the right tc
soeedyreilcf from illegal imprisonment
/ by means oftbe writ of habeas corpus. is one
OF the most valuable of the rights of the
| citizen and the authority of the state fri
1 ~ o'"'' S"' ~ VII "" " fanny q,
important as any other which they exer
else. Any restraint of such right, there
fore, should be clearly shewn. II i
acknowledged, there is no express quail
hcdiIon Of the authority Of The stat,
courts IN this respect, contained in TN
constitution of The union nor Is thei
jurisdiction implicitly circumscribed IL
any manner Whatever, except bv tn
| exclusive powers vested In fbe tribunal
Of tie United States. Therefore. hi
court has an objectionable Iurisdir
ton ~ this case, unless ii appears by tn
rciuFg, that it has been cofstitutionaIl
placed under the exclusive coghisauce I