New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-12-29

else with view 10 see whether the clam Tor MS
extradilion s well founded the State Of New-fork
steps in AID caims superior right 20 sindieste the
question This, ii is stated, Is virtually saying that
tie United States shall have Jurisdiction al all In
such cases for it is impossible that any foreign fugitive
from justice should be arrested who could not md
means Of procuring writ OF ha5eas corpus from
local Judge. thus removing the whole natter into
State Court. Indeed il was said by tho District
Attorney in lis remarks before Judge Mitchell, that
this method Of interfering with process from the
Federal Courts has been adopted not only here bat III
other States and that serious Inconvenience are al
ready arising therefIom. 1t has accordingly beco ne
necessary 70 have the quest OF jurisdiction author-
atively settled and with that view the Marshal refuses
to bring the prisoner before Judge Mitchell claiming
that a. he holds him By federal warrant the STATE
las TO control or right to interfere in the premises
HereuIon the decision, which will be found in another
column was rendered ordering the man to be set free
though not INJECTING any penalty the Marshal for his
refusal to obey tie writ Of habeas corpus. Indeed
the corduc Of tie Marshal is not referred to in the
decision az ell.
The ground on which Judge Mitchell interferes in
the case, is that il has not been acted on with due
less BY the Commissioner the hearing having
been twice postponed notwithstanding the urgent de-
msnd Of the prisoner for prompt decision, and the
admission Of the prosecution that they already had all
the evidence they could expect to bring against him
Accordingly tie Judge proceeds to inquire into Its
meritf and finds that the proof OF the crime alleged to
have been committed which is forgery is not sufficient
10 ufly the extradition of the accused OF course,
then he orders his release, at the same time maintain
ing his own jurisdiction the premises HIS argument
Oh tLis point il certainly strong one He shows thatby
act of Congress the judges OF State Courts clothed
with tie same power TO arrest and surrender alleged
fugtyes from Justice as United States Judges and If
the have such power they may also come in ani decide
a ease where trial is unduly postponed by the United
States magistrate who arrested Linn. Besides after
stating some other points he argues that the power OF
State Judges to release parties detained by United
State oficels is ore very frequently exercised AID
practically admitted. And iii be not valid there is
but one way of ascertaining it, namely, by appeal
70 the State Court of Appeals, AMI thence to the
Supreme Court at Washington, to whose decision
every otter tribunal will cheerfuly submit. To
the Court of Appeals, we believe the question
will DOW be carried, with the District Attorney TO re-
present tie exclusive jurisdiction of the United States
magistrate 1t is evidentya subject Of great interest,
and calculated to arrest tie attention OF all rejecting
citizens. There is no important feature in the
American Constitution than the mutual limitations of
State ard Federal authority, and it is desirable that
they should lie made perfectly clear in every particu-
lar At the same time we may well regard with salts
faction the spectacle of serious aud delicate mat
ter being peacefully settled by the abest aud gravest
legal inteecs of the nation and of the universal
quiescence in the law it is finally laid down, without
i'll feeling or rebeous promptings in any quarter.
1t is great of vitality and permanency in political
institutions when so radical conflict OF powers is
fought out in 10 other arena than that OF constitutional
principles, logic and heightened common sense-the
only arena where in this country, anybody ever
think of having question of the sort decided.