The Arkansas banner., 1845-01-22

of error is desired under the twenty-fifth sec tion 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 authorl- ty, and as access to him in prison IS denied, ii is insisted that the writ to bring him before the court Is the only means through which this court can exercise jurisdiction in his case by a writ of error.
 Even if this were admitted, yet the question recurs, 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 1t is equally clear that the pow CT nowhere exists, unless 1t be found ln the fourteenth section above cited.
 The power given to courts in this section to issue writs of Scjre facias habeas corpus, &c, as regards the writs of habeas corpus, is restricted by the proviso to cases where q prisoner is Gin custody under or by color of the authority of the United States, or has been committed for trial before some court of the same, or is necessary to be broughtinto court to testify" This is so clear, from the lan- guage of the section, that any illustration of it would seem to be unnecessary. The words of the proviso are unambiguous. They ad- init of but one construction; and that they qualify and restrict the preceding provisions of the section, is indisputable.
 Neither this, nor any other court of the United States, or judge thereof, can issue a habeas corpus to bring up prisoner who IS in custody under a sentence or execution of a State court, for any other purpose than to be used as witness. And 1t is immaterial whether the imprisonment be under civil or criminal procress. ifs tte lalc ao1v stands, an iadiridua1 wbo IS indicted ia circuit coart, for treason against the United States, IS beyond the p0leer of federal courts and l judges, f he be in custody under tte aHthori- l ty of Slate
 Dorr is in confinement under the sentence of the supreme court of Rhode Island-con- sequently this court has no power to issue a habeas corpus to bring him before it. His presence here is notrequired as witness, but to signify to the court whether he desires a writ of error to bring before this tribunal the record of his conviction.
 The counsel in this application prays for a writ of error; but, as itappears from his own admission that he does not act under the au- l 'lC44ty 't 1I0ii1 bHC lt illC lO1 tlS0b Ct IiiS friends, the prayer cannot be granted. In this view, it is unnecessary to decide whether the counsel has stated a case which, with the authority of his client, entities him to writ of eror
 The motion for a habeas corpus is over ruled
 Er parie In the matter of Thomas Will son Dorr, on petlfion for a writ of habeas corpus, or for a writ of error to the supreme court of the State of Rhode Island
 On consideration of the motion made by Mir. Treadwell, of counsel for the petitioner, on prior day of the present term of this court, 10 wit; on Wednesday, the lth inst.,) and of the argument of counsel in support of the motion thereUPon had, 1t is now here or dered and adiudged by this court that the said motion be, and the sameis hereby, over ruled.
 By Mr. Justice Mclean.
 27th December, 1844.