Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-08-18

OF tic laws, nor State Office lawfully execute such
authority If conferred II Col Morgan, by receiving
into ms custody of the Marshal Of the u States
soner Tor safe keeping thereby accepts any Office place
commission or appointment, under the authority of the
" % That OF itself could not render the confinement
OF the prisoner unlawful The effect would be to vacate
his occ under the State governments he would cease
10 DC keeper OF the Pcnen,iay But surely the
opinion must be, that Col Morgan has thereby
ceptcd any Office place under the authority Of the
u States; and am unable perceive any thing in the
iaw OF Congress, or in the sentence OF the Court which
IN any wise attempts 10 make any State officer the in
stfumcn TO execute the penal laws of the u States The
whole matter is dcvoved upon the Marshal of the IT, s.
who IN performing his duty, has obtained the aid of Col
Morgan, and by his the OF the public Jail aud
Ienitcniary is true that there is act ofhe General
be doncneither is there which, prohibits it, Nor
can aNer careful consideration of The subject per
ceive that 1T involves any violation of the general
duties otthc keeper TO the Commonwcath-Wha snot
prohibited, is at least permitted though it may not he
commanded-Judge Sempe, in his able opinion, dis
sennng from the majority of the Court, in the of
Fool and others To the legality of the Of
mtncnt concurrcd with the Court the lawfulness of
the imprisonment upon the ground that although Con-
gTess could not consttutionaily authorizes Justice he
Peace to issue the warrant of commitment, they had
power TO authorize the itself
and tina; the jaor, who had the actual custody, might
well be regarded the scrvan, agent of the person
authorized by Congress to imprson. In this case the
Marshal has full authority to inprson and the Keeper
OF the Pententay may net his agent for that purpose,
upon what to be clear principle that whatever s
aunozed by he constitutional laws OF Congress and ~
neither prohibited by the laws OF the State forbidden
by any duty which the citizen the Common
may lawfully be done withinit Ii
what would be the rule of decision ofconct be-
tween the laws of the u S. and of the Stae the requ
ring the other forbiddng the things II ever the
order of Providence decision of question shall
fall to lot, it viii then DC time enough ascertain
what duty shall require Of Sufficient for each day
is the evil that attends itBut again, il is contcnded
that the prisoner has been subjected mode and nea-
sure OF punishment not authorized by the laws of the
United States If this be so, the party may be entitled
to relief from the Judicial authority OF the u. Staes
or to have his wrongs rcdressed in other way but
it cannot affect the awfuness of his imprisonment
which is the only question before 1t is therefore
unnecessary to give opinion upon the effect of the
act OF Congress passed, &C. If unnecessary rgor has
been imposed upon the prisoner he has been subject
ed to hardship not rendered for his safe
keeping-the person committing the injury may subject
himself to punishment therefor; the party injured
may be relieved in other proper mode but not by
habcas corpus-Ihe single question to be tried under
that writ, is the lawfulness of the Imprisonment.
The view which have taken of the second question
made at the bar, has rendered any opinion upon tho
third unnecessary; and nothing remains but to direct
that the prisoner be remandcd
%7et IF Congress, dpprocee .lInt 90, 1891:
Sec J. That whenever criminal, convicted Of
again the United States shall b. Imprisoned
ay OF any State rorrory, such criminal SHALL
be sublse TO the discipline AMI couvcs
fenced hy the Courts Of tie
or Pcnitcnary stIated and wo confined shall
be exclusively rer the control of the officers
same, unden Tho Iaws of the State or Territory