Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-11-22
WRIT OF HABEAs CORpI1s

The opinion was pronounced OH "Wednesday
al" Inc Deentient is discharged We shall lay tn,
argument OF Counsel before readers in our n. II
ana IN tile mean time hasten to publish the Ouuio,
oil Judge Observation-Disclosures, we do moi he 81
tate to say, is luminous, profound and conc l,siye
IL has gwen general and undissembled satisfaction
IL IS source of much regret, that the u. S. Atror
ney for the District should have conceived il Ii
duty to insist upon the issuing of this Process:
EIpdre JOHN ii. PLEAsANTs,-ON A WRIT OF
Habeds Corpus.
ne Applicant l. in custody of the Marshal for the East
rrn District OF Virgnis aud has pettoned tor and oh
tanned iabeas Corpus, relieve him from hat he al
Ie"ges 10 ne an illegal detention The arsa has mad
return To the writ, by which appears that he arrete,
the petitioner under authority Of an attachment issue
from the circuit Court OF the District Of Columbia for IN,
county oil Alexandra, for a contempt by him committed !,
not attending the said Court as witness. sfer bens
theret" legally summoned. The attachment itself an,
the preViousProceedngs. together With an affidavit Of IN,
Attorney Tor The District of Coluba, are anne ed 10 e
return by these appears that the Grand jury of ,a
county have before them bill of indictmrn Mt charyino
robert D. kIndoip' and others with conspiracy to rom.
mn an ASSAULT ON The President Of the u in the said
county, and that in the estimation OF the said Attorney
we SAID pieasahs may he material witness in the sad
Many important subjects have been brouyh, into v;
during this discussion, Of which shall notice such ss
shall deem necessary 10 enable me TO form cor,ec I
mon on Tie Case AT the very threshold am m,t viii
the objection that this Court cannot lake cor zance Of ,h
case, because the arrest OF which the Applicant complain,
Oh"ed nides who alone can judge OF the egsty of The
arrest This Jecste qufs sion, and Is attended with
dinlcuhy when look TO the Habeas Corpus act find
That lie provisions very general aud co,npreI.,.ivc
IL declares that whenever person detained i'm rusoIy
(whether charged with criminal nee or not ,,Ii an
ply Tor writ oil H"6eds Corpus dd subjieiend,im and
snail shew by affidavit or other evidence probable ea.
10 believe That lac Is detained in custody t,jf0uf LrfI
onhoy II shall be the duty Of the Court 10 award The
writ Aud The Court before whou, tire prisoner shall bc
brought, shall proceed 10 enquire into tho cause oI hi. i'm
pnsonmei and shall either dischargs him. admit him IN
PAIL or remand him into cuody as me ioW and evidence
sba" require In every case in which there Is de,en
ton without liwfu authority, the Court NAV reieve ,
parry detained II would that, f the commitment
he made ny Court having jurisdiction to commit, hi.
Court ought not 10 discharge al oueh the idoso, of
the committing Court he erroneous. But II II n, mad. 10
Court having no juriSdicon then the disch .rse NAV be-
made. ~ ny "
"hhoui going into the roniroveried question Of com
nh'enb ~ ue under unconstitutional, aud therefore void
laws. there may be in which undcr constitutional
ana valid laws Circuit Court of the United S'acs may
exceed ITS commission. u may exercise powers which
Ihe law VIII mo- warrant by such unwsrrsutcd jurisdc.
non, "y may seriously encroac the pef<Ondi liberty
oil men whom the State Courts are bound TO pofert-
ouI not The judges in such neglect their duty i'll
they failed TO protect ,hen'
10 the present case foreign court, that is court ut,
ing beyond the limits Of Nrgins, and sledged 10 have
only local jusicon has sent its proc youJ IN. o
territory, and, arrested individual within the iur.di,,o
oil this court find IL 10 lie general principle that the
courts OF one state or country cannot issue It's in
10 another without the that Other. b, lie cou,
OF tile county OF Aie8andra claims an exenp ion frou
that general principle aud undertakes 10 arrest citizen
within our jurisdiction. When tina, citizen claims the
y, or own laws, surely II becomes proper
suDect oil lnVesbgaiion here whether that court IL bound
me general principle comes within the exemption
whch vs. cImmed am Of opinion ti,af ought TO enter.
tain jurisdiction Of the case
great deal Of ingenious and forciblc argument has
Oten ued 10 prove, that the federal have right
W sch or contempt OF their process, indeed TO pu
hlsn oy attachment 10 any do not, however az
VIVID the counsel 10 many Of the views he bds presented