Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-08-11

te.Iv, Virginia Cases 32i. In that case
The Court unanimously decided Ina. !,
STATE Court hal no Jurisdiction Of an olieare
created by an act OF Congress. But az
HE distinction drawn by Judge Cheves
may be toUnded on good reason !: as IN.
counsel Tor tho Prisoners has exprcsslY
, declined making or arsuirg This obiec1
lion 10 the proceedings, and as, from the
| opinion have formed Ola other parts Of
The case, am under no necessity Of de-
Gliding Ms, L expressly wave delivering
any opinion upon II /; HE more especially
as clearly perceive HE evils and incoJ-
veniencies wiih which Il denial of the iu-
I ri .dictlon OF Tie state officer in cases like
The present would be attended
| ?. The second had $50 be en- contro9eits
ell question rmany years pasi, and sill
remains unsettled.
| In The case OF Charles Lockinston, who
| was detained as an alien enemy by HE
Marshal OF PennsS lvania, under HE a,i-
thorlly oil the United States, Chief Justice
| itigtlman and Justice Yates expressly
( atIirnl tho power OF the stale officers To
grant wits OF Habsas Corpus in all eases
Ui illegal Imprisonment, under ccionr ut
| authority from tie United States. Halls
Law Journal, Vol. 5. P. 3oi. In Ike case
| OF Almeida, the same docltiDc is n,ainlaii..
ed by Judges Bland and Hanson. See
The opinou OF the latter in Niies's Regis
Ter, Vol. IL, 2. 2Sl,
In The case OF Emanuel Roberts, Q Halls
Law Journal, P.l02, Oh the application
OF min"r enlisted i'll The service OF tia.
tinted States, 10 be discharged, Nichoi-
son, CHEF Judge, seems 10 have deiermiu-
cd against the jurisdiction, although lie
declares. that IN All extreme case lie would
4 luf al, 4,
exceed the technical limits If his Gathority,
relying Tor hisjusiticaiion on The app oba-
ton OF all good men, for resisting CD.
preston under The colour of law" As
cannot agree that the question OF jarisdic.
ton depends at all upon Tie greater or
less degree oiaggravaiioD in the case, al
, though Ills latter consideration might
have weight IN determining the discre-
| ION oil The Judge III granting or refusing
The "ril, think tbs case merits less res.
peci than il wonId otherwise be entitled
To, from The learniEg and high standiugsof
The Judge who decided il.
| Ia Tie case OF Jeremiah Fefguson, %
Jehusou, $3.50 OH similar applicaiion
for : writ OF Habeas Corpus in the case
at asoider enlisted III The army oiihe q.
States, The wrlt VAS refused, because It's
| being granted IN term lime was matter
OF sound l"gal discretion and as The
detention was under colour of authority
OF The United States, Federal Judge had
clear and unquestiomaisl.. s",ber,.y ~
give The party complete relief, aud ,nighs
he applied 10.
In That case Kent, c. J. whose opinions
are, on many accounts, entitled 10 very
great weight, disclainled harnga amy juris-
dict,on over the subject. Gu The oihpr
ha nd, Justice Thompson (now Secretary
o! the Navy eliminates a differeni opinion
aHdSpepcer, Van Ness aud Yates express
ly reserved tU themselves tie question OF
| jurisdiction. inlimating no opinion either
| way.
In Riiodes's case, although il was not
necessary 10 decide the point, judge
Cheves does consider il, and expressly
disclaims Jurisdictions.
There are no other eases known 10 me-
IN WHICH this question has been made,
except that i'll Virginia, in relation 10
tue very case decided by Nicholson ana
keut, The Judges have requcntiy exercis-
ed jurisdiction without doubi or hesia-
iIou; SO vel known, and well established,
has been the practice, that The Lesisla-
ture IN 1914 amended The iiabeas Corpus
laci. by pro,ldIIs that ii BY g any iuds-
meDi upon tie return OF such VIII, aDy
4 "a
shall be discharged u write Of error may
Lao obtained from the judgment, on The up-
piicaIion oi any attorney dGiy auihOiiz,
cd on behalf OF The Uuiled Slaies :" thus
expressly recognizing aud affirming the
jurisdiction OF the slate Judges.
Judge Fucker also in his appendix 10
Black. Noie ID. p. 20i, has slated The
same question, a one mcknight natural
~ occur /; aud has affirmed il To be The
impeIioUs duty u! tie State Judge 10 a.
ward The wit, and matter OF sound dis
creiion, what course he viii pursue, Gu
lis ret urn.
am aware that" questions Of jurisdic.
ton bciweeu the United States aud The
State Courts, are generally nice and dcji-
cate subjects" | would always avoid
Them where II was possible, and especial
" when am sitting alone, aud iiaYc n0'
been assisted by SOLEMN argument Bur
when they happen 10 fall in my way, a |
| cannot wave d decision without denaI
| OF justice, must endeaTor 10 meet The
question, fairly, and act in tho wauMcr
becoming the important trust reuused m
me, by my native State.
After an attentive consideration of ti,f
! Constitution aud laws OF Congress. Of tl,,
| nature OF our Government, AMI OF al liza
: has been written on this subject, car
see no reason % doubt the authority O
: Il State Judge 10 interfere in case 0 hi;
] nature.
: This authority I've derives moi from IN,
United States, but ii emanales irofn ~,
: several States. The ffabeas Corpus Ac
Virginia which extends to all cases O
G deprivation of liberty without "iavCu
!, authority, expressly coniers jurisdiction
= In such cases II is made The iniperstiv,
o duty OF the Judge TO award The writ, ant
y he cannot deny II under any pfeience. -