Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1854-01-06
The ia
-stion.

of the U. $. and lead to a decision as to the
power Of the State Courts to issue the wri,
Of habeos corpss for the benefit Of persons
held by U. $. Judges lodge Mitchell
Of New York has sustained the power. Of the
State Courts. The Tribune says;
al he circumstances are these rAlexander
lleilbonn was arrested on the warrant of Mr..
Nelson, United States Commissioner, as a
fugitive from justice reclaimed by the Bit
sh Minister under the Treaty of extradi,ion..
lie is thus in the custody Of the United
States Marshal, when that officer is required
by wnt Of habeas corpus, issued by Judge
Mitchell, to bring his prisoner before that
magistrate in order that the reasons for his
detention may be inquired into. In other
words, when the United States have the
man in custody and are about to examine
his case, with a view to see whether the
claim for his extrsdi,ion is well founded, the
State of New York steps IN and claims a
superior right to adlu9cate the question:
This, it is stated. is virtually saving thst the
United States shall have no jurisdiction at
all in such cases, for it is impossible that a
ny foreign fugitive from justice should be
arrested who could not find means of pro-
curing a writ Of habeas corpus from local
Judge, thus removing the whole matter into
n State Court. Indeed. it was said by the
District Attorney in his remarks before
Judge Mitchell that this method Of inter
iering with process from the Federal Courts
has been adopted not only here bu, in other
States, and that serious inconycnences are
already arising therefrom. 1t has according
y become necessary to have the question of
Jurisdiction authoriintvely settled and with
that view the Marshal refuses 10 Ydng the
prisoner before Jsdgo Mitchell claiming
that as he holds him by federal sarrantthe
State has. no sontfol or right to ,dterierc IN
the premises. llcroupon the decision, Of
Judge Mitchell Of the Estate curt was rem
dercd, ordering the man ~ be set froo,
though not iuillctng any pen'y on the Mar
shal for his refusal To obey the wit Of habe-
as corpus. Indeed, the conduct Of the Mar.
shall is not referred TO in the decision al all
"The ground, on which Judge Mitchell
Interieres in the CASE, is tnat it has not been
acted on with due promptuess by the Com
missioner, the hearing having been twice
postponed, notwithstanding the urgent de-
lnond Of the prisoner for a prompt decision,
and the admission Of the prosecution that
they already had all the evidence they could
expect to bring arainst hIm. Accordingly
the Judge proceeds to inquire INTO its mcr-
it,, and finds that the proof Of the crime al
lodged 10 have been committed, which is for
gerry, Is not sufficient 10 justify the cxtradl-
ton of the accused OF course, then, he
orders his release, at the same time main.
iamng his own Jurisdiction ia the premises
Ills argument on his point is certainly
strong one. He shows that BY net of Con.
gress the Judges OF State Courts are cloth
ed with the same power to arrest and sur
render alledged fugitiycs from Justice as L.
5. Judges; and If they have such power,
they mny also come in and decide case
where trial is unduly postponed by the Uni
ted States magistrate who arrested him Be
sides, after stating some other points, he ar.
gves that the power OF State Judges to re-
lease parties detained by United States Off /
GERS is one very frequently exercised and
lie admitted "A 10 In
Id, there is but one way of usccrtaining II,
namely, by appeal to the State Court Of APP I
peals, and thence to the supreme Court at
Washington, to whose decision every other /
tribunal will cheerfuly submit. TO the
Court Of Appeals, we believe the question
will now be carried with the District htior-
torney to represent the exclusive jurisdiction
of the United States magistrate. 1t is evi-
IDENTITY subject of great interest, and calcu-
lated to arreot the attention Of all rejecting
citizens. There is no more important fen
tire in the American Constitution than the
mutual limitations Of the State aud Federal
authority md is desirable ia I they should
be made perfectly clear in every particular
/ At the same time wc may well regard with
satisfaction the spectacle Of so serious and
DELICATE a matter being peacefully settled by
the ablest and gravest legal lntellects of the
nation, and Of the universal acquiesence in
the law as It IS finally LAID down, without III
feeling or rebellious prompungs IN any qGar-
ter. II Is a great test of vitality and perma-
uoncy in political institutions when SO rad-
cara conflict Of powers is fought out in no
other arena than that Of constitutional prin
ciples, logic and enlightened common sense
tho only arena where, ia tins county, any
body can eyer think of having a question Of
the sort d,cided."
If the decision of Judge Mitchell is not
sustained, we prcssme the Vernon, habcas
corpus act must GO by the board. On the
other hand it is possible that tho L. $. Sup
RENE Court may sustain hn, aud still not 60
far enough to cover til. Vermont act We
hope, however, that the Coul will settle the
whole matter.