The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1845-01-10

move the record Of his conviction to this court ha
been refused. On this ground the above applica
ion has been made.
Have the court power to issue writ Of habeas
corpus in this case' This is preliminary ques
ton, and must be first considered.
The original jurisdiction of this court is limited
by the constitution to cases affecting ambassadors
other public ministers and consuls, and where a
State is party tsappellate jurisdiction isregu-
lated by acts of Congress. Under the common
law, it can exercise no Jurisdiction.
As this case cannot be brought under the head of
original jurisdiction, il sustainable it must be un-
der the appellate power
1.-The lith section OF the Judiciary act Of 1859
provides, THAT the courts of the United States
shall have power to issue writs ofscre acias, ha-
beas corpus, and all others wrts not specially pro-
vIded for by statute, which may be necessary for
the exercise Of their respective jurisdictions, and
agreeable to the principles and usages Of law
Aud that either of the justices of the Supreme
Court, as well as judges of the district courts, shall
have power to grant wrts of habeas corpus for the
purpose of an inquiry into the cause ofcommtment t.
provided that writs of habeas corpus shall in no
case extend to prisoners in jail unless where they
are in custody under or by color o: the authority
of the United States or committed for trial be-
lore court of the same. or are essary to be
brought into court to testify
In the trial of Dorr. it was insisted thai the law
OF the State, under which he was prosecuted, was
repugnant to the constitution OF the United States.
And on this ground writ of erroris desired under
the twenty-tfth section of the Judiciary act above
named That as the prayer for this writ can only
be made by Dorr, or by some one under his au-
thori;y, and access to him in prison is denied, it
is insisted that the writ to bring him before the
court i. the only means through which this court
can exercise jurisdiction in his case by writ of
error.
Even if this were admitted. yet the question re-
ours, whether this court has power to issue the writ
to bring him before it. That it has no such power
under the common law, is clear And it isequally
clear that the power nowhere exists, unless it be
found in the fourteenth section above cited.
The power given to the courts in this section to
issue wrts of scire Jacias, habeas corpus, &C., as
regards the writ of habeas corpus, is restricted by
the provso to cases where prisoner is sin custody
under or by color of the authority of the United
States, or has been committed for trial before
court of the same or is necessary to be brought into
court 10 testify" This is clear, from the lam
guage Of the section, that any illustration of it
IN ba ha de pT fhn
provso are unambiguous. They admit Of but one
constructions and that they qualify and restrict the
preceding provisions of the section. is ndispuable.
Neither this. nor any other court of the United
States, or judge thereof. can issue habeas corpus
to bring up prisoner who is in custody under
sentence or execution OF State court, for any
other purpose than to be used as witness And
it Is mmateria whether the imprisonment be under
civil or criminal process, As the law now stands,
individual who may be indicted in circuit court
for treason against the United States, is beyond
the power Of federal courts and judges if he be in
custody under the authority of State.
Dorr is in confinement under the sentence Of the
supreme court of Rhode Island consequently this
court has no power to issue habeas corpus 10
bring him before it, HIS presence here is not re-
qured as "A witness, bat to signify to the court
whether he desires writ of error to bring before
this tribunal the record Of his conviction.
The counsel in this application praya for writ
oferror; but, as it appears from his own admission
that he does not act under the authority OF Dorr,
but at the request Of his friends, the prayer cannot
be granted. In this view; it is unnecessary to de-
eide whether the counsel has stated case which,
with the authority Of his client, entities him to
writ OF error.
The motion for habeas corpus is overruled.
Ei parte: In the matter of Thomas Wilson Dorr,
on petition for writ of habeas corpus, Or for writ
of error TO the supreme court OF the State of Rhode
Island.
On consideration OF the motion made by Mr..
Treadwell, of counsel for the petitioner, OH prior
day of the present term of this court Ito wit: on
"Wednesday, the lth instantly and ofthc argument
of counsel in support of the motion thereupon had,
it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court
that the said motion be, and the same is hereby,
overTuled.
By Mr.. Justice Mclean
9th December, 1874.
From the Baltimore American.
LATER FROM MEXICO AND CHINA.