Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1850-1854, 1854-07-28

tcd'States shall be vested III one Supreme
C 1urt and in such inferior courts. as thJ
Congress may from time to time ordair
and establish. The judges, both of the
superior and inferior courts, shall hold
their office during good behavior, and
shall, at stated times. receive for THEN
services a compensation which shall not
be diminished during their continuance
in office" In the case of Martinvs Hun
ter's Lessee, list Wheaton, r. 305 the
Supreme court Of the United States SAYS
(after quoting this section of the c0nsti-
tution.) Gould congress create or linn
1t any other tenure Of the judicial office!
Could they refuse to pay, at stated times
the stipulated salary. or diminish it dur
ing the continuance in office? But one
answer can be given to these questions ;
it must be in the negative" And again,
in tie same case: congress cannot vest
any portion of the judicial power of the
United States except in the courts or
ddincd and established by itself" We
thcrcf IRE do not see how these Commits
sioners can be regarded as part Of the
judicial organization Of the United States.
But the position assumed BY the counsel
for the plaintiff III error. that the court
VIII 'se jurisdiction first attaches to a case
viii retain 1t, notwithstanding that pro
ceedlngs may be subsequently common
ced IN other courts of concurrent iuris-
diction, is, we think indisputably correct
1t Is familiar principle and will be de-
MED by no one. But the quest IN ari-
ses, whether the facts statel lnfthe petit
ton Of the relatJr for the writ Of ha6eaS
corpus show such case.
1t will not be denied, that the citizens
of the State naturally and properly look
to their own State tribunals for relief
from all kinds Of illegal restraint and inn
prlSOnment. These courts are clothed
with power sufficient for their protection
and would be recreant to their duty were
they to refuse to exercise it upon all
proper occasions. We do not think the
principle contended for BY the plaintiff in
error applies to a case of this nature
/ The petitioner stated in his petition
for writ, that he was restrained of his
liberty by reason ola pretended warrant,
copy Of which is annexed to the petit
ton. BY that it appears that Winfield
Smith, acting as commissioner OF the
United States, had, upon an examination
Of the petitioner for an alleged offence
against the laws Of the United States, or
dered the petitioner t. recognize with
sufficient suretjcs III the sum ottwo thou
sand dollars for his appearance at a term
ot'thc District Court to be held at Mad
lson ON the first Monday of July then
next. and that in default Of the rCcogn.Z-
ance. the Marshal wa. commanded to de
liver the petitioner t. the common Jail
&c. The warrant recites that the Fcti-
TONER had been charged on oath with
having. on the eleventh day Of March.
eighteen hundred and tifty-four at the
city Of Milwaukee in the county of Mil
waukce, i'll said county and district. un-
lawfully aided assisted and abetted a per-
son named Joshua Glover, held to ser
vice or labor in the State Of Missouri I'M
der the laws thereof and being the pro
perry OF one BENJAMIN. s. Garland, and
having escaped thcrefaom into the State
of Wisconsin to escape ON the lawful
custody of Charles c. Cotton, a deputy
of the Marshal Of the United States Tor,
the district Of Wisconsin. the said Charles
{. Cotton having then and there arrest
rdand taken into custody the said Joshua
Glover. BY virtue of warrant issued by
the Judge Of the United States for said
district. pursuant t. the provisions of the
act OF Congress i'll that case made and
provided, approved September 9Th 1851"
In order to snUW that the case Is with
III the principle in question, it must APP
- t,a4 ! = ~
states had the ease pending before it
which was made by the issuing and SER
vice Of the writ of hqbeas corpus that
the question of the legality ofthc impris-
onmcnt of the petitioner was then pend
ing before that court. and this, the facts
in the case do not show. They merely
show the ordinary case Of a person i'm
prl>Oncl under color Of legal process for
an alleged otienSe. In slcn a case, the
Investigation Of the legality of his impriS-
onment does not necessarily involve an
inquiry into the question of the guilt or
inno en"e Of the prisoner, nor OF his La
bllity to be held 10 answer for the alleg-
&c otensc.
Thus. if the imprisonment is by virtue
of a warrant issued by State magistrate.
any Off CT in the State. authorized t. is
sue the writ Of hd6eaS corpus, may cX
anime into the cause of the imprisonment.
and may discharge the prisoner. upon his
giving bail for his appearance at the pro
per court to answer for the ohenSe with
which he his charged. if bail has been re
quircl by the magistrate. and the officer
who issues the writ of hQJeus corpus.
should be of opinion that the oiIcnsc was
bailablc. So if the magistrate has no
authority to imprison SO if the war
rant OF commitment. should set forth no
otIcIse, and the commitment Shoull be,
for that reason. irregular. unless proof
should be offered with the return of the
writ. to show that the prisoner was guilty
Of an ottense. (ReylScd statutes. chap.
l2t, sec. 2l.) In these cases and many
more which might BE put, the question
of the legality of the Imprisonment is in
vestigated without ou>ting court Of
any juriS fiction which it has acquired.
Nor 10 we think that the question is
changed, By the fact that the officer who
issued the warrant by virtue of which
the petitioner was imprisoned. was All of
liter of the United States. In many ca
ccS, the state Courts and United States
Courts have concurrent jurisdiction. In
some the jurisdiction oil the State Courts
is exclusive. And in some, that of the
t nltci states courts is cXclasiye. When
the jurisdiction Is concurrent the court
whose jurisdiction first attaches. will re-
tain the cause, and the other courts Will
not interfere. rs in no other way can Il
conflict between the different courts be
prevented and, of course, when court
has exclusive jurisdiction. no other court