Martinsburg gazette. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1833-1855, 1833-12-05
NJ ONDAY. DECEMBER Q, 1888.
JUDGE BRoCKENBRoUCH,s OPINION
E. PGrfs JOHN II. Plea sANTs-On a ,orif o,
Habeas Corpus.

Fl PGrfe JOHN II. PLEA sAsTs-O On a srrit o.
Habeas Corpus.
The applicant is in custody of the
! Marshal for the Eastern District oil
Virginia; and has petitioned for, and
obtained Habeas Corpus, to relieve
him from what he alleges to be an lille.
gal detention. The Marshal has made
return to the writ, by which it ap-
pears he arrested the petitioner under
authority Of an attachment issued from
the Circuit Court of the District OF
Columbia, for the county of Alexan-
dria, for contempt by him committed,
in not attending the said Court as a
witness, after being thereto legally
summoned. The attachment itself, and
the previous proceedings, together with
an affidavit Of the Attorney for the
District of Columbia, are annexed to
the return. By these it appears, that
the Grand Jury Of that county have
before them bill Of indictment charg.
ing Robert B. Randolph and others
with conspiracy to commit an assault
on the President of the United States
in the said county, and that in the est.
nation of the said Attorney, the said
Peasants may be a material witness
in the said Prosecution.
Many important subjects have been
brought into view during the discus
sion, Of which | shall notice such as /
shall deem necessary to enable me to
form correct opinion on the case. AT
the very threshold | am met with the
objection, that this Court cannot take
|cognizance Of the case, Lecause the
arrest of which the Applicant com.
plains has been made by virtue Of pro-
cess of Court of the United States.
who alone can judge of the legality of
line arrest. This is delicate ques.
lion, AMI is attended with difficulty.
When look to the Habeas Corpus
act, | find that its provisions are very
general and comprehensive. 1t de-
eIares, that whenever a person detain-
ed in custody whether charged with
. criminal offence or not) shall apply
for writ of Habeas Corpus ad suijici-
sndum, and shall shew by affidavit or
other evidence, probable cause to be-
leve that he is detained in custody
rithout la,cful authority, it shall be the
duty of the Court to award the writ.
And the Court before whom the pris.
oner 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 lao and evidence
shall require. In every case in which
there is detention without lawful au-
,hority, the court may relieve the par
y detained. 1t would seem that, if
the commitment be made by a Court
having jurisdiction to commit, this
Court ought not to discharge, although
the judgment of the committing Court
be erroneous. But, if it be made by a
Court having no jurisdiction, then the
discharge may be made.
Without going into the controverted
question of commitments made under
unconstitutional and therefore void
laws, there may be cases in which un-
der constitutional and valid laws a
Circuit Court Of the United States may
exceed its commission. 1t may exer-
else powers which the law will not
warrant. By such unwarranted juris-
diction, they may seriously encroach
on the personal liberty Of men whom
the State Courts are bound to protect.
Would not the judges in such cases
neglect their duty if they failed to pro-
iect them!
In the present case foreign court,
that is a court sitting beyond the limits
of Virginia, and alleged to have only a
local jurisdiction, has sent its process
beyond its own territory, and arrested
an individual within the jurisdiction OF
this court. find it to be a general
principle, that the courts of one State
or country cannot issue its process into
another, without the consent Of that
other; but the court of Alexandra
claims an exemption from that general
principle, and undertakes to arrest 9
citizen within our jurisdiction. Wher
that citizen claims the protection o
our own laws, surely it becomes a pro
per subject ofinyestigation here, wheth
er that court is bound by the genera
principle, or come within the exemp
ton which is claimed. lam ofopiniol
that ! ought to entertain jurisdiction
of the case.
A great deal of ingenious and forci
BILE argument has been used to prove
that the federal courts have no RICH
to attach for a contempt of their pro
cess, or indeed to punish by attachmen