Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-08-18
(B)
JUDGE CLOPTON,S OPINION

JUDGE CLOPTON'S OPINION.
The petitioner William M. Black is brought before
me IN obedience to writ of Habeas Corpus ad subci-
cnduIn, directed 10 Charles S. Morgan Keeper of the
Public JAN and Penitentary house of the Common
wealth oil Virginia, who, in his the writ as
signs the of his detention of the said Black in
has custody that the said William NJ Black having been
indicted tried and convicted, in the Circuit Court Of the
United states Tor mlsdemeanor committed in violation
oil an act of the Congress of the United States and
sentenced by that Court to be imprisoned and kept hard
aDour Tor the term OF ten years from the 2lh day
May 1885, was, by the Marshal of the u. S. for the
Eastern District of Virginia. (upon whom the
OF the said sentence had by the Laws the u s. de-
voved) brought on the first day of June 1885 to the
said Public Jail and Penitenary house in order that
he might be Imprisoned and kept at hard labor there
In, tor the term of ten years aforesaid that as the
sentence under which the said Black was brought
was of court Of the United States he the said
Keeper deemed 1t prudent that order should be
tancd from the Governor of the Common wealth, di-
recng his reception into the Pencniary fore c was
placed therein upon the footing Of State ccnvicts; and
untli such order should DC obtained, he declined
ceiving him except for safe keeping but did receive him
Tor that purpose and accordingly gave the Marshal
receipt and he makes transcript ofthe record and pro
ceednes upon the indictment agains: the said Black and
copy of his receipt TO the Marsa parts his return
By the record appears that the offence charged upon
the SAID Black, aud of which he had been convicted
robbng of the Mail the United States while en-
ployed carricr-And the receipt is in the following
words "Reeeired g' ne MARSHAL Of The United States
Court hed at e City Of Richmond for the Eastern District
81 pgtnd, Tie body of NiiGm Black, cho iaieig con-
e.eted % Jel0ny 6eore tie said CO" fer safe heepn
~ az dSeeTta,ned 1hoer he by d1o he punished
sentenced. C. s. MORGAN
June Ist 1885"
On the motion of the petitioner, by Counsel and in
pursuance OF the authority conferred by the 9th section
OF the iabeos corpus law, which that the
the writ shall not be taken be conclusive but it shall
be competent for The Court to receive other violence,
Abner Grlliin of the officers Of the .eniientary
was sworn as Witness who testified, that Black
ceived into the Penentary the first dry OF June On
his being received his hair closely with scs
sors but his head not shaved lie then nut
solitary confinement where he remained for or davs
he To- RI. 4, L..
the witness, considered him put under and subject TO ali
the regulations of the Pententiary and believed that
had be mIsbehayed, lie would have been whipped or
confined in dungeon, according to those regulations.
The Counsel for the petitioner las argued three qucs-
tons
LIST That this Court has jurisdiction to award wri,
OF abeas corpus ad subjiccndum, in favour of person
detained ia custody under colour of the authority of the
United States and to discharge if upon the return the
Court shall be oOpnion that he is detained without
full authority.
"a That upon the fscts in this casc the detention of
the petitioner in the PcncDtiary is without lawful au
thority, and that he ought TO be discharged hereron
Sd. Thatf the Court should decide THAT the petitioner
IS confined in the Peniicntiary, without lawful authority,
and ought therefore TO be discharged, this Court las
power to order h into the custody OF the Marshal of
the United States.
These questions involving as they seem To do con.
ict OF jurisdiction between The State and Federal ri.
buuals of great dclicacy and of high importance
requiring COOL dlsp1ssonate and impartial investigation
and decision, and this have endeavorcd do aided by
the able discussion of the questions by the counsel for
the petitioner and the gentlemen who h.vc appeared on
the other sdeand an examination of all the dccid
cd IN the several States, which accessible 10 me
As 10 the first question, the counsel who appeared in
opposition to the petitioner have admitted the power OF
the court 10 award the writ indeed could not have
been reasonably expected that this power would be de-
MED n Virginia. after the decision Of the General Court
Ohc highest criminal tribunal in the Stac) in the case
Of Pool aud others, the of Lawlon decided by
Judge Parker and Of MIR Peasants by Judge Brock.
enbrOugh Fully concurring do in tie reasonngs up.
on which these decisions founded in this particular
am Of opinion that this Court has competent authority
TO award writ Of babeas corpus sd subncendum on be-
half OF any person within its nrsdcti0n wi1 shall shew
probable cause 10 believe that he is detained in custody
without iawlul authority, whatever may be the author
~ Under color Of which he may be confined If any
doubt could have been supposed to upon this prnc
pie, u seems 10 Inc 10 have been removed By tho provi
sion of tie amended Constitution which declares that
the privilege Of the writ Of 1abeas Corpus shall not in
any be suspended thus SCORING % all within her
Jurisdiction, the privilege of having The Of their
imprisonment examined into by her own tribunals up
showing probable cause TO believe it unlawful and
thus extending 10 them that protection by her laws 10
which they entitled. The authority 10 award the
writ being competent necessarily carries with it the
consequent power TO discharge ii upon the return The
law and the evidence shall require The great object
sought by the Constitution and the laws il the discharge
Of those confined without lawful authority. To attain
this end, and for other purpose, Che power to
award The writ conferred; which would be uscless and
impairment, without tho power 10 discharge.
Upon the second question: il has been argued for the
petitioner that the laws Of these United States by vir.
tue Of which the confinement Of the petitioner is 81.
legged, do not warrant his confinement in the State
Penitentary that IL those laws had in their terms
tempted TO give such authority they would far