New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-07-26

ez par II counsel can show any decision OF s1p-ror
court sustaining his view Of the case the art vii -sl-
II you will bring statute susceptible Of two meanings
All hesr argument.
Mr Ashnesd-If the decision in Doris casa, and tn
act Of Congress settles the asr is useless 70 lcok t'-
other cases want % shox tat the Pc ion FOR hsb.-
corpus the Court below doe. not orth that fisn-r
in the custody Of any body By virtue o. process 81
State Court
Judge Kane-You have now for the frs; time p-esn ID
afsct.
Mr Ashmead-the petition to your Honor SAYS that the
Marshal Il urjustly held by the Sheriff.
Jude Kan.-No petition has been present d 10 me
have not had II IN my hands.
The petition then handed 10 Judge Kane, who read
it, and said if not presented With view t. AH- IN
Marshal oa Of the custody o. the person 70 whom ,7
state Court had consigned him. he would hear counsel
butt otherwise. the wit could not be issued
Sir Ashmesd replied that the petition vas presented IN
the shape handed TO him He could admit or deny
nothing.
Judge Kane-It owing 20 the opening Of counsel that
the Court has thrown out certain nnnaions II the pe
ton Dot take the Marshal OF the custody oi M
sheriff the wit Of Habeas Corpus viii issue ! YOU'D
rather that the petition should bs amended Is mean,
that the Sheriff holes him By virtue Of process lssas1
out Of the State Court would qnssh the VIII Wouo
ike the language more definite, by change oil PnrAs7
The wit was then granted by the Court.
Marshal Wynkoop br' ught into Court oy Deputy
Sheriff Vim. 81 Blneyer, when bis counsel Mr. Ashnetl
asked that the L Marshal might be permitted TO make
statement 20 the Court
the facts Of the they have be-a before published
and wished know Whistler he had acted rght IN th7
premises He bad throughout the whole matter sc,ed Goa
eI;iousy and only sought to Go ms duty As ths hsu
ofihe United States
Mr.. A.hmead remarked that the Marshal had acted
right in the position assumed by him, IN his M a
opinion.
Judge Kane said-Let Us where We stand. Upon
petition h4beas corpus the writ issued 10 the snerh
10 which that officer makes that he holds the Mar
shal upon an attachment issued By State Court on
charge Of cODtenp IL refusing - obey writ of h.Oets
corpus allowed BY Judge OF SAID Court directing him 70
L = -. \ Et-ts he
admits that he has the person in custody bat says he viii
bring him before the Court For this contempt be IS
committed to prison after the Judge has clearly dehnei
the authority Of the UDited States.
The language in DORIS distinctly defines tn power
OF the United States Court The petition presented TO ne
l. susceptible Of two Interpretations says the N .rha
is in the custody Of the sheriff but does not say that twas
under process Of State Court. Sfa'e Court has
power 10 commit for tempt Tor that watch Il upon Is
records This Court has no authority = interfere by
bsbess corp1s The very Of the Sheriff negatives
the authority TO interfere Ii states that the Slsrh holds
the Marshal by virtue of process issued out OF safe
Court. The writ granted by me must therefore De-
quashed, "a having issued unadvisedy.
have listened at;entively to 4 communication made by
the Msrsha and must here in justice say tina; no officer
is more anxious to perform his ouy properly aud ga,nty
generally better advised The writ OF A4bl
JUs however must be obsyed matter 10 whom ad
dressed This is indispensable 10 the personal safety IF
every man. Ii is the be Obeyed because spurious
officers persons acting under cOsr OF lsF might oh
eTwse consummate an iniqut0us act Inc writ 10 ms
csse issued to meitOnou' officer but to m'roS
NUlEIt De srucu 70 one WHO lrc4 Nl,Pusrl
to disregard it with an evil mind Inc writ must be
obey e6.
can see apparent exceptions but they apparent
only Where II woulo endanser the life Of a person BY
bringing bm into Court where high political interests,
~ times Of the srny and navy ght be leoPUdzed,
by tie abstraction Ot important officer Sach wts the
car. 81 NeS Orleans wherea refusal 10 obey the WIZ mg1t
enoauger the country and where r,ort upon the Judge
who Issued The writ deemed necessary for the
b. SAFETY a. that county
BUT this case The essential point Of a
return wgt of habss corpus Is that The person 70
whom Il issued, has not n bafy or k1s 10 COHct-
Where Wrt WIS i--u-d which directed Off
hey wit Of the United Sites PAiLful conflict would
arise hut such Mt fhe case
Marshal. ynkoop gain explained that he only wished
10 be- r'.hf IN the matter
Judge katlt would rot rlsce the body Of the person
whom the Marshal has custody. under the iur.f'to
of the Court ehch be makes return % @rI, hsoe.
oopus whore another Court h4 Jurisdiction Of the m si-r
viii viii such person charged the latter Court having
previously hso he body ina custody The Mtrs4h no
doubt acted under uisaI pre- henson OF duty.
M Aslmesd raid. tls MsfshGi b>d no Opp0riun y 10
discuss tie que stou, Whether he bound take the
PRISONER before STATE Court after he had received
nands nom competent tribunal u take hun 10 Maryland
Judge kare replied that the only question before "a 4
was whetrerb lad authority 10 issue the writ, aud he
hsc determined that b. hAd done 50 unadyisedy
Tie custody % tine Mrshai sas continued with the
Sheriff with his previous order OF tne Sa:e Court to take
lin t. prison .
We understand that tie Marshal had called in Geo
Dallas o. confer with and that Mr. Dallas had advised him
to amend bis return o. tn Stat &, uTt
Here tie matter vests for the present
The wife o. the Slave PRESENT IN Court Shs mas
four Children.