The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-12-29

Of the prisoners detention, and that merely
nigh. appear from any feet alleged before the Judge,
10 show that the imprisonment detention unlaw
the davt on which the warrant Of arrest was Issued
Sanford Superior CT Rep 1869 and found 1t Insult
ssnt and discharged the prisoner There too the .i-
tons showed that the real offence obtaining goods by
fae prstences, which, as represented to him. only
enough here to say that when the warrant dsp.nas for
corpus must examine the complaint oath, fit
does clearly complain Of such offence authorizes
that =" hsh.s sns ,.,s uas ss %
tsiers when the arrest purpord to be under tbs laws
OF the United States or under treaty The Gases Of
netsssr and Hayward were both uudsr the Laws u the
Uoited States the Slate Judges acted then and scts
reluctantly, bat without hesitation dee ming it their
duty first TO issue the writ and after they had issued It,
not to stop then to make nocksry justice by refusing
to act further but to and the prisoners
and decide it, In Mszssrs case the prisoner was sou
mttsd to be surrendered unstion before DO
lice magitrx'e but discharged by the State Judge
he was again arrested and examined before the Uuitsd
states District Judge and commitment ordersd by hin
and also by the mandate of the President of Uoited
States but again he brought corpus before
the State judge and BY him (Arsr full argument by
the learned counsel and after complete exAm'na-
ton into the matter) finally discharged This in
Of the State Judge, passed law to meet the difficulty
which he had poiated out; and In that act far from
save to them the like to arrest Is was given to the
United States Judges. There Is further reason why
Justice requires the State Judges to sc In the case Of
Metzser and in the Supreme Court OF
the United States refused to grant writ Of habeas
corpus In order to review the decision Of the
United States District Judge, holding that they
q Bost ESQ, 264, 1917 But the esosion OF the state
Of the State and fom thence Court OF Appeals
from thence to the Supreme Court of the United States il
the decision Of the Court Of Appe,s bs against the power
entirely pescease mode Of having such questions finally
settled they still m.tters cf doubt and ths Ss,e
I,&-A, Hal
that Court of last resort The Revised Statutes OF
State provides that ell proceedings under The
may be removed by cororsri into he Supreme Court TO
DE there examined and corrected but that such
torari shall be issued unless the ZANE be slloSed BY
Justice Of the SUPP Court Circuit Judge, until
fnsl adjudication shall have been made by such oacsr
upon the claim to be discharged bailed. ar bS,
", e9) They then provide for writ Of error to the
Court the Correction of Errors by tho prisoner by
the Attorney General in cIGinal or the party
loved civil cases. There limit to the cases 10
which the appeal may be MAIDS by certorar the
con Of the officer Issuing the habeas corpus to the Su
not carry the from the Supreme Court to Court
Of Appeals then when the suprs Court AL decide
this case fua judgment win have been given in suit
In the highest court oflaw Ia this State In which dec
sion in that suite could be had, and there its decision
could be re-examined and revised affirmed ia the
Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of error
If the decisions of the State Court against the right
set up M DER the treaty statute Of the United States
hs thus not IL sny ..y
erfere with the Law Of the United States On the con-
tray he conform t. it. he ands an act Of Congress
complaint oath with Of the offences psrtica-
arxed in treaty; that inhabtant OF the State demands
the protection Of laws and 1t turns that the
psin made sgsin him does not show that he has
mited any osDse for which he removed from our
territory thus those who hold him under the warrant
are acting In opposition to the United States laws.
n nSss w a hsa tn; r.. are s
have been in operation for more than twenty.
three years and DO considered far they have
mn fhA n1st@n
cessve legislatures They allow the wit Of habsas
ard require the Judges and courts to except
Of the United States those where process has bee
Issued by any court Of the United States any Judge
elusive jurisdiction under the laws of the United states
or have acquired exclusive jurisdiction by the cor0.
menes nsDt Of suits In such courts. e R. S. sos "a,
'2D The authorities before referred show that this
section does not apply United sta4, Judge acting
At chambers or rs . Commissioner. ct least when no
sctua suit s pending Bedees the United States Judges
have exclusive jurisdiction TO arrest in those csss
the act which gives them power to arrest gives it
also to the State ud ge-and the Com missioner Who or
ders the does "a committing maristte and 10
not JUG of the United States the U tied States
Courts Tie lower Of the Stats Judge to discharge per-
sons held in unawfuly by United States officers
is exercised probably every in this city whore per
IONS under sge have been enlisted in the United states
Army without the consent In the matte. Fer
guson, (9J R, 1881 the majority OF the Court seemed
10 hold to be sitter Of discretion grant it or NJ
wner the Court was sitting in term time. This was in
1917 Even then the Court would abandon the right
10 issue In Massachusetts,, the power OF cisobargng
exercised Rpp.
o. e and enforced our courts ia 1877 n Cow
80 ne curt saying, ANY person Illegally detained
has right TO be asehsrgsd .Dd it Is the du Of this
has been no hesitation the power 1t were
unlswful or even ipexpeden Congress would have in
done in these cases by making entnasn Of minors
vahd unless they were discharged by the Untsd States
Ss State opa d an IN the Of
even in case where the powers Of Executive arc
strained but Ts.,,.nsd only 50 FAR q. they exercised
ben. fit the writ Of hsbea corpus ptrsons oommNe ed
or detained BY virtue of the final gment decree OF
any competent tribunal of civil criminal jurisdiction.
OR s, 563, "A, 20 By the pbraseology used, the
or decree binds the party in such case and he
that he may not go behind the commitment whom = ma
gshAte bias limited authority and exceeds It. SO q
pSnsr may no, Dc at liberty to 60 behind an i.diot-
an effect 0riS tor ard not like the warrant IN this
case, mere statutory remedy to be issued BY mass
ate only on certain preimnsries being first Piled
with. and dependent them fer its vitality The priso
ner being unlawfxiy confined must be discharged and
an order must be entered accordingly.
Tie fcll wing the grounds upon which Mr. Busteed
con euds tia Eeoonn il entitled to bs discharged
That the eytladition treaty between this country
Congress of 1888 parsed only in aid of treaties
90 moi Il II rmi' execute themselves provide for
2. That the &C. Of Cong Of 1s4s provieog less
measure, and esiabli.hIg ddsrcnt rule Of evidence
tion IL voi6 and stttutopal
3. That the prisoner having been found within the
territorial limits OF the State Of New York. only such
evidence by the laws Of this Stats would be
beoIe State magistrate, possessing criminal jursdic
ton, be admitted the hearing before the Commits
sioper; and that 1t Is The statutory and common lad
right Of the prisoner confronted by hi, accuser and
the Witnesses against him, to have them
examined on his behalf
4 That thsrs ia no legal evidence that Mugysrides
he 1nnd altermsn, is justice Of the peace other
evide, to what crimes the uris.
ction Ct justices Of the peace for the borough Of Lon
don extends.
g. That theirs |, evidence or a.testaton that the
papers offered in proof OF the crimnalty accused
true copies tf the original dispositions upon which
TIE o, igiEsl warrant was issued.
That the complaint under OATH required by the
tenib article OF the treaty and the rst section Of the
act Of Congress OF 1885, necessary to mi late ursdo-
lion in the officer Issuing the here and that nc,
con plant made in this case.
That the facts alleged againat the prisoner do not
u proven, constitute the crime Of forgery.
The Opera Controversy.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK gERAIn