The New York herald., 1850-12-24

nited States provides that whsn"A person charged
IN any state with treason, felony, other orms whs
shall nee justice, and be found In another State
ststs from which he nsd be delivered up, to bs re-
moved TO the State having jurisdiction 81 ths crime
Then comes the ast Of Cosgress Of which provides
that when such demand Ia made. thsrs shall be pro-
duosd cspy OF an indictment found, or an snAsvit
made before magistrate charging the person with
the crime, certified authentic by the Governor,
making the demand On dseming these authentic, it
ebs be the duty OF the Governor, upon whom the de-
nAnd 70 made to cause the person accused 70 es
cormits the crime OF burglary In Rhode Issnd,
and fees to the State OF New York-tns Grand
Jury Of Rhode Island find their bill Of indiot-
msDt, which Is certified by the Governor Of Rhode
Island to be authentic, and demands the sur
render Of the man charged with tho offence, what
anime the evidence Of authenticity; and ON fnding
the ssme properly certified he has bat one duty to
performto arrest and surrender the prisoner. Here
s opportunity for the habeas to review the
decision Of the Governor, upon which ais warrant Of
,,,.nt ~ ,u,sndsr spS ipours into the sviSsncs
received and considered by the Governor With the
addition If you please OF other testimony, to show
that such crime has been committed as has been
charged in the indictment habeas corpus, In suoh
cause accompanied by proposition to review the
cause In this manner, would strike every one As
absurd. No such thing be done In that cass-all
will admit that. The practice, since 1893 has beer
uniform, that on habeas corpus you cannot 60 bshind
the Governors warrant when he surrenders fugitive
from justice. Sheuld there be any statutory pro-
vision that the trial OF this judicial writ should take
y
sbsurdty. To witness Governors finding and de-
csion reviewed and re-exsmined by jury Of twelve
stranger would pronounce it farce. In principle
there is difference between that and one for
the same purpose, under the treaty 1t has been
argued further, that even II confined to what
aEpear the fsos of the return, still the prisoners
should be discharged for the that, upon the
face OF the warrant II does appear
that any offence has been committed in France called
''roi qualEs c,fme"-in short that there Is such
offence in France as "rol quade crime" An ingenious
hal h.Av he of than nAu.
missioner and that OF the Secretary Of State as to
the meaning Of the French term, col quaiids crime
used in the treaty, and what should be the proper
Interpretation OF the terms ss used In the treaty
This is technical objection, which cannot apply TO
proc. edipgs hobeGs for in such proceedings
the substance IL to be regarded and not the form
1t substantially appears the face Of these warrants
that a time embraced within the French treaty has
been the subject OF evidences before the Commiso
Aud II 1t does 10 substance appear that is sufficient
In tn. proceedings On hG5eds all that be
required is substantial allegation that the offence
has been committed in ths country from whence the
demand Is made. And % far as am able to under
srd the translation of those terms of the treaty they
imply the commission of extensive larceny alta shed
TO which is an infamous punishment, like confinement
20 hard labor. We cannot shut eyes against va
such . acbBs . may answer some fsvorite purpose
With the populsr voice and wherever we md sue
legslaton. will be that the utility OF the pro-
cess Is much impaired The unnatural lumber thus
attached TO its original and simple frame work, only
to embarrAss and retard it's usefulness. Tho
writ Is judicial and secured to citizens by the consti
tuition 1t canno' be suspe nded except In time Of war
and yet II may be so tinkered changed, and altered
that the osthe constitution would hardly recog
mise Its existence BUTT is to be hoped that in Con-
grefs at least, the ancient writ of haes be
retained rs an efficient and important right Of the
citiseB in its simple and long established mode of
trial. Should Congress 20 seriously work in
forming the judicial system, as to order all the judi
eisi "us hnow 90 .ns Con mon G sucn Is .ts o.
tried and determined by jury the civilized world might
well be sstonished There is no danger of any such
pretended reform IN that qusrter Upon that part OF
the aeas corpus which shows that these prisoners
held In custody the warrant Of the United States
Commissioner and embraced in the warrant Of extra
diton from the Secretary State is ruled that the
hofas pus be dipmirsed There Is still another part
Of the return which shows that the prisoners held
by txo warrants Of commitment from the Court of
General Sessions of the city and county Of New York
Those the first in order, but according to the
views which entertained by the court IL s quite
immAterial which branch OF the 10 first deter
mined. In regard to these commitments take this
occasion to say that do not enter jurisdiction Of
this writ on their behalf There Is ne occasion for
any United States Court to express opinion at this
day, that ditchaSgs any prisoner who is held
and in ssa.r I'd STATE 2, Sy ,rius
beyond the jurisdiction Of the District Court Of the
United States 1t principle acknowledged by all
well informed citizens that the line Of Jurisdiction
betw national and State jurisdiction should be
strongly marked that every court ebs abide by that
be on Situated as states
are In relation to the general government the first
o. encroachnsn snt or conflict should be avoided. Let
this be the rule ard all will be safe and harmonious.
Such win be thr order ,hss writ Of habeas corpus.
This i deemed the true cour,e " We consult original
principles decided eases. shall leave the State
sutho rites and their warrants where they
by this witt presumips that the state authorities
will be quite as ready 10 remove out OF the way Of
treaty ttpulations all obstruetions the courts of
TIE nitsd States themselves. The state courts
In no want OF knowedge that treaty Is the highest
Law Of the land the constitution only excepted and
that the States are rs much bound by treaties which
exist as Congress itte, and to suppose for
the way CT their s.ssg,on In support Of tb.ss view.
will refer TO the following the present case
II is understood that his homer, Judge Edmonds on
this rrciple has refused TO entertain the kaeas
Jus brought before him, by these prisoners and the
Gaze was there dismissed The correctness Of that
deeien Is apparent Ii has been argued here, tbs
other pont In controversy that this witt Is often
brought TO relieve persons who belong to the
navy Of the United stass but nothing contained
in the argumen mt as to the proper tribunal IL be
assumed as correct that all where the mpris-
m,nt is under the authority OF the United states
the courts OF the United States only have Jurisdiction
OF the writ OF babess corpus and all where the
imprisoDment IL under State process authority the
State tribunals alone have jorsdiotion. Jobnson,
2sp jeremiah Ferg.r.oBs care. The great principle
fettled in this case Is thst state court has juris
dioSn Of ha6eas corpus TO discharge soldier OF the
United states army" Kent, Chief Justcs, gave the
opinion of the court in that quote the
substance Of hs opinion This IL the Language OF that
only be UNIT for the Court interpose In this case
go long ss the courts and judges Of the United
states have ample and perfect jurisdiction ever
the whole tuhject matter, but that IL would
be exercising power without any jurisoisnon -
IL will not dmn,h the weight of this authority when
u lnht lhte Nr JUS Ice thompson, then n
member OF the eupr-ms Court OF New York conourred
In the opnien expressed by Chief Justice Kent and
Cnorotd his own opirion In language equally strong
Two tuch minds rarely occupy the tame bench to-
gttfer. and although many years have pared away,
tt the authority remains mistaken I rest upon IL
With entire confidence, knowipE too that other
rule cen be sdJpted, without bringing the United
States authCriss into conflict with the state sutho
rites Iknow full veil that during the war OF lsl1
there veie instenots where the hsbcas corpus was
brought before State judge TO discharge enlisted
scloer from the amy; but when We knov too that
thtfs smell Proceedings couRteu sncsd from
81 pption 60 the war than from principles sf Law.
they ill coute 20 influence cur minds 1
s'rsirod TO cay that those proceedings pslps
by err oDsops that they never b. urged sutho
fitative Gtciioua. II TIE state courts discharge
soldier from the army, saiiur from the navy,
Nntscs rrfyus, then the United h -ates courts and
uittd States iu ges may exercise the similar juris
ctitn over a militia Of tbs states in time OF peace
Here g. man subject 20 military duty IN Marylaud,
en- o 6re IL imposed on him tor neglect OF duty,
for ocnttnTt or Cisob dienre OF orders while duty
and he is imTrifoned ny watts- from his command
irgtf6cer Now will SEX whfther q would be ther