Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-11-26
GAZETTE.
JUDGE BRocKENBRoUGH's OPINION.
Es Pure john II PLEasANTs.-On wrif o.
Ia Ha6eas Corpus.

TIE AppIcan, is in custody OF the Marshal
Or ths Esstern District Of Virginia; and has Pc
tir,oued for, and obtained a HaDeas Corpuo, to
relieve him from what he alleges 10 be an illegal
:. detention. TIE Marshal has made return to
the writ, by which it appears he arrested the pc.
ti,lonsr nader authority Of an attachment issueu
fram ,he C,rru,, Court Of the District OF Colum
h,y far the county Of Alexandria. Tor con
tsmot nv him committed. in not attending the
said Court as witness, after being thereto le-
ealIy summoned The attachment ITSELF. and
the previous proceedings together with an am
tayituf the Attorney for the District OF CoIum-
b,. are annexed To the return. BY these It ap,
pears. that the Grand Jury Of that county have
before them bitlof indictment charging ROBERT
r. Randolph and others with a conspiracy to com.
mi, an assault on the President Of the United
States in the said county, and that in the estma.
,ion of the said Attorney, the said Pleassnts
NAV be a material witness in the said Prosecu-i
sflOn So
MANY important subjects have been brought
into view during the discussion, OF which shall
notice such as shall deem necessary to enable
me 10 form correct oPinon on the case. Al
the very Threshold am met with the objection,
that this Court cannot take cogniZance oil the
case. because the arrest Of which the Applicant
complains has been made BY virtue OF process OF
Court Of fhe United States. who alone can
Judge of the legality Of the arrest. This IS De.
licate question, and is attended with difficulty:
When look to the Habeas Corpus act, find
that its provisions are very general and compre'
bepsiye Ii declares. that whenever person
detained IN custcdy (,shether charged with cri
minal offence or not shall apply for writ
Of Habeas Corpus .subjieiendnm, and shall
shew by affidavit or other evidence. probable
cause to believe that he is detained in custody
,cithom iascfd authority. It shall be the duty OF
the Court to award the writ And the Court be-
fore whom the prisoner shall be brought, shall
proceed to enquire into the cause OF his impri-
sonment, and shall either discharge him. admit
him to bail, or remand him into custody. as the
lau and ec,denee shall require. In every case
in which there is detention without law'ul au-
thority, the court NAV relieve the party detain.
ed II would seem that, it the commitment ne
made BY Court having Jurisdiction to commit,
this Court oushlnot TO discharge, although the
Judgment Of the committing Court be ERRONEOUS.
But, If it be made by Court having no juris.
diction, then the discharge may be made.
Without going into the contr0yerted question.
Of commitments made under unconstitutional
and therefore void laws. there may be cases in
which under constitutional aud valid laws a CIR.
cult Court IF the Uui,ed S'aies may exceed rs
commission. l. may exers Use powers which the
law will not warrant. By such unaar aDten ju
risdic,ion, they may seriously encraach IN the
per.ooa, liberty of rnpn whom the State Courts
are boand to protect Would no, the Judges. In
such cases neglect their duty it they faled To
protect them!
In the present case foreign court. that is
court sitting beyond the hmits ot Virginia, and
alleged to have only a local jurisdiction, has sent
its process beyond ats own territory. and arrest
ed an intli,idual witain the jurisdiction of this
court. find 1t to te a general principle. that
the courts If Due State or country cannot Is
sue. its process INTO another without the consent
of that other: but the court of Alexandria claims
an exemptions from thar general principle, and
undertakes to arrest citizen within our Jurisdic-
tion When that CITIZEN claims the protection
of our own laws, surely II becomes aproPer sub.
isct of investigation here whether that court IS
bound hs the general principle or come within
the exemption which is claimed. am OF OPT
uion that ought to entertain Jurisdiction OF the
case.
great deal of ingenious aud forcible arsu
ment has been used to prove, that the federal
courts have no right tesattach for a contempt OF
their process, or indeed to punish BY attachment
in anv case. do not, however,. agree with the
counsel in many Of the views he has presented on
this subject. In our. State courts there. is no
doubt of the existence of the power. We are
in the daily habit of imposing fines. or attaching
witnesses who refuse to obey the process OF sub.
pena, and do not see bow courts Of justice can
perform the business before them without the ex-
ercise Of this or some equivalent power My
opinion is that the constitution does vest 10 Co..
gress the power of arming their courts with those
powers which are necessary to enable them to
discharge their duties, and in one case il impera.
lively requires that the courts should exercise
those powers; for the sixth amendment declares
ssthat in all criminal prosecutions the accused
shall! enjoy the right to have compulsory process
tor obtaining witnesses in his favor" Before
the establishment of the Constitution. it was
well known in every state Of the Union what
was the nature and character Of the compulsory
process BY which the commands Of the courts
were enforcet The process Of attachment was
we'll established process for that purpose (;
.x,d ,rhen the Con xestad with