The Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1852-1853, 1853-10-19

cause a Grand Jury have said there was an
offence against law Of the United States
OF because a district Judge Of the United
States in discharge Of what might bSFegar-
ded as ministerial duty only has issued
his warrant. my power as State Judge ov-
er this subject is at end True, it is, I
/ know, that the District Court of Northern
California has no jurisdiction of the offence,
but in asmsch as il would be unssendy in me
to decide the question, will haYe nothing
to do with it. Upon principle, it seems to
me, that State Court or Judge of a State
Court, has the right to enquire into the
cause of caption aud detention, and if it is
found 10 be unlaHful tis,hiss solemn duty
to discharge the prisoner from custody !
nc the District Court to which It's propos-
ed to transport Jares Collier for trial,
! has no jurisdiction OF the offence, or If the
facts charged in the In9ietpent be q viola
ton Of no law of Congress in force in Cali
fognia at the time alleged. the impHson-
ment is unlawful, and the discharge, is
n,ees nn,9e esssarIvtR sarvtR consednennce lla 9yiG sW Tol9d
/ This position is sustained by authorityjl
and L thinkby the very authority g cited by
the Attorney General to maintain the fre4il
1verse, and upon which; ne, seems to rely
Iwith so much confidence He saws "l
htkink The view Of this question, takehby the
I General Court Of Viaginiajis on the whole
the most satisfactory, to wit: "|That State
.fCourt will issuethe on the application
of any party. showing probable. Oause; that
on the return thereof, the party will be held
IIas lawfully restrained, if confined in obedio
ltenee ito any Constitutional law, whethersof
1.-THE State or of the United States; that there's
upon the State Court -willneither, discharge
nof bail,a party whose commitments regu-
llayly made, with view to a prosecution dp
the Courts Of the United Statesforl an offence
alleged, which is coynizdb1e therein: and In
suc6 case ,alth6ughthd State Courts have
concurrent jurisdiction With those Of the NJ J
nited States in all cases of illegal cogftne-
naent under coior Of Die authoFayof tAs Ua
ted States, vet tile State Court will not look
beycnd the warrant OF commitment issued
by a competent court ofthe United States" !"
Espan Pool, ctL ais. Se,geant's 70 Copsst.
H., 286.l .igm Gt5 ~ l,iU---g9gu1o)
The vie taken by the General Court of
Virginia, if properly understand it, is is this
that State Court will issue a writ Of Habe
as Corpus to ascertain whether a party is
unlawfuIty restrained Of his liberty y;that2 that
, Court will hold him tatefatly restrained, If
confined in obedience, 70 any constitutional
law of the United States but that, that Court
will determine its constitutiopality, that; it
! will neither discharge nor lei. to bail the
party when COMMITMENTS regui arly made,
with a view to prosecution in the Court
of the United States, for an offence alleged
which is cognizabe therein. Ave we not
J to understand from this view Of the Question
4 that if the Court has no Jurisdiction, no coy.
| nizance Of the ofencec, charged, that The
/ Court of Virginia will discharge the person
from conf lement? Again, if the warrant
; ir such case had been issued by the Dis.
, trict Court of the United States for the Nor
thern District of California, the General
, Court Of Virginia would have deternaineq
. whether that Court was competent or had
} authoriy, to issue warrant for arrestin9
5 Collier for an offence not cognizable in that
court But If it be true. as alleged by the
| council for Collier, that the Indictment
J which accompanies the warrant in this case
shows no offence against any law Of the Uni
t ted States; or if it b. true that the DlStrlc
, Court of Northern California had no icognl
zance of such an offence, is tnot manifest
FROM the authority above cited, thai the
General Court Of Virginia would havs dis
: charged him2 tpat HguoEY-.. s9a2uau
b. Iu Lewis Criminal laws. Of the United
, States, at page 265, it is said: r"The trial
must be according to the laws of nations,
within whose jurisdiction the offence, was
committed, limo such law has been often
ded there can be no trial d o. punishment,
:, and surrender in such case would be ab-
f surd and altogether fruitless." gst
q b3s A Haheas Corpus was issued BY Tllgh-
, man, G. j. of the Supreme Court of Penn
sylyania, directed to tha: District This. re-
later was 10 custody by virtue Of an attach
ment issued by the District CoRrta of the y
nited States for the Pennsylvania District
The Chief Justice declared that if the Dis
trict Court had jurisdiction, he had no right gght
:, to enquire into its judgement, Or interfere
with its process if nhad not, in his opinion
be would possess the right and i would be
bis duty tor discharge the relatort in slYch such
case" Serg. Coust. Laws 284. vi oo,j
19le'tApA ina subsequent case in the 4 same
Court, the Telators being imprisoned BY, itlhe
Marshal, Of the District as an alien enemy,
under thef regulations made BY thel Presi-
: dent of the United States, in, n pursuance oi
the Act of the 10Th of July, 1898, respect
ing alien epemies, it was held that q State
Court or Judge might award q Habeas Cor Cor
:. Al e H.