The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-12-29

WASHINGTON, Dec "a, 1874.
Report Of Decision OF Supreme Court in the Case
81 Dor, for a Habeas Corpus on Jtrit Of
Error.
Through the courtesy Of Mr.. Treadwell, we are
enabled 10 transmit ysu the decision OF the Su-
preme Court in the Don case, as delivered this
morning by Justice Mclean. We guess il 10 the
earliest report OF this decision iurn shed for publ
cation. We may here remark, hat Mr.. L. IN
sIss that the friends OF Dorr cannot fail Of efiectng
the ultimate liberation OF the real Governor, by the
voice Of the people OF Rhode Island.
ErPate duplication 81 r. w. Dovr for of Of Hab,ss
Corpus Thos Dorr victed before the supreme
Court 81 Rhode Island ut March term iss4, of
against the state Of Rhode Island and sentenced
State Prison for lite. Aud appears from the sdavs
and others, that personal access 10 Dorr in his
6nement to ascertain whether he desires writ Of
been refused On this ground the shove application
has been made Have the court lower to issue writ
question add must be first considered The original
Jul isdction Of this court Is limited by the consti-
tuition to cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and where Stale is party. Its
nppsa;ve jurisdiction regulated by acts OF Congress-
Under The common law u can exercise no jurisdiction.
As this cannot be brought under the head OF original
Jurisdiction IL sustainabc il be under ,hs appel
a,s power The h section OF the Judiciary act OF 1850
provides that the the United shall have
power wri,s OF eirs ac,ss hsbsas corpus sl
other wrs no, specially provided for by STATUTE which
may BE- necessary "ior the exercise Of their respec-
and usages OF law. And that either Of the Jus
ces OF the Supreme Cont well Judges Of the Dis
rc Courts shall have to grant wTits OF habsas
corpus for the purpose Of an inquiry into the Of
commitment Provided that the writs Of haJ,as corpus
shall 10 extend to prisoners in Jail unless where
they IN custody under by color OF the authority Of
the United States, committed for trial before
court OF the sane necessry 70 be brought before
the Court totestiiy' In the trial Of Dorr insisted
that the law Of the State under which he was prosecu
ted rcpugnant to the Constitution Of the ststes
And this ground writ OF ~ desired under tho
25h section OF the Judiciary oct above named thai,
the prayer for this writ only be mad" by Dor by
some under his authority and sccess 10 him In
prison denied II IL Insisted hat the writ 20 bring him
neios the Court 10 the only nrsns hy.whch the rourt
exercise jufsd,, ton ga his ~ rtt oil
Even II this admitted, Jet the question
whether this Court has power c the writ bring
him before H. That IL has sNeA power under the COM
mon law clear And equally clear that the power
nowhere exists unless be found In the i4th section
above cited The power given to the Courts IN this
ton TO issue wris OF seirs feas habeas corpus &C.
CARDS the writ OF habeas eopus " restricted By the pro-
viso 70 where prisoner Is in custody, under
by order OF the authority VI the United States been
comtted for trial before Court Of the same Ia
necessary 10 be brought into Court TO tceify" This
clear from the language OF the section thst soy illustration
of would seem 10 he unnecessary The words of the
provso are unambiguous. They admit Of but one
uction, and that they qualify and restrict the preceding
provsens a the section Is indsputsble Neither tins
any other Court ofhe United states, judge there
Of issue hab,os corpus bring up prisoner who n
IN custody under sentence execution OF State Court
for any other purpose than TO be used witnes And
Is mmatsriai whether the inprisonrent be under civil