New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-02-13

ing into mere question Of criminal plesdfnr.-.sX
INQUIRY Is affecting the jurisdiction and power Of
tie Court which entertained the indictment befas.
us, and proceeded TO verdict and judgmen, thereon
an entirely sstsfed that II the ary had returned
general verdict Of guilty this Indictment, the In.
tesrepce Of this Court with the senserce of tie Dis
trict Court Of the United Ststes would have bean
wholly understandable; because, in thai casa, there
would bsve been a conviction for an oaense within
the power If the District Court 10 try determine and
pupsh. But the record which constitutes the nitr.
mus before us, shows that the indictment upon which
this restor WA aied contains count for oense
within the jurisdiction OF the Court which tried him.
ard two counts presenting crime for which per-
could be trsd In that Court. Upon the first coant
there has been no conviction and consequently there
can be punishment; that The sentence and i'm
pihonmeDt of which the relstor now complains must
be for an alleged oense hey end the control cogni-
zsrce Of the Court which imposed that sentence.
II in the District Court, an indictment were pre-
sented some Of tue counts Of which charged svioa-
ton Of the revenue laws Of the United S,atss and
other counts charged libel, or assault and battery
and upon trial q conviction were obtained on tho
counts charging libel, assault and battery would
sn imprisonment on such conviction, where the
charge Of violating the United States revenue laws
had not been sustained by the verdict, be beyond the
inquiry of this Court
Would the CONVICTION and sentence in such a case,
be the =" fral judgment OF Court OF c,mpetsat
ctm nal Jurisdiction cf the oense Of which the party
was convicted or would the Imprisonment consequent
on such sentence be " by virtue Of process issued
by any Court or Judge of the United States in q
where such Court or Judge has excirsve jurs.
election - cannot think so.
Whenever in q case ike the presen. one, writ Of
kab,ds con pHs Issues, directed TO Federal officer, and
be makes sproper return setting forth the cause or
process by which the party is restrained Of his liberty
or ,nfned, | conceive IL TO be the duty and within
the legitimate power Of this Court or the oieer oe'
fore whom the writ Is made re'urnsble, 20 examine
as well the process by which, a. tue cause for which,
the party rest aimed imprisoned Ii the pro,ess
be such a. might be issued by the tribunal or officer
who issued il aud the cause or matter in which the
proceedings were taken, be within the authority
power or jurisdiction of the Court or otiicer, then
there is plain duty imposed upon the Court or OF.
fcer who Issued the writ of kabeas corpus 20 remand
the party; but IT, the contrary the process or
rant for the imprisonment he unauthorized, the
subject mstter upon which the party has been de-
pived of his liberty be not within the authority
tognizance Of the Court or officer who has assumed
act then il lie equally incumbent on US TO discharge
The party.
The Constitution of this State art. !, sec. q So
cures to every person within the State the privilege
of the writ Of hdbeGs corpus and the use of that writ
is adapted to all OF illegal restraint or connne.
ment The Justices of this Court, a. well as Judcia
officers Of the State, who are vested with the yer
of awarding this writ would be recreant To the duty
imposed upon them and to the trust reposed IN nem
BY The people if in any case OF illegal restraint, IN
which they have power TO act, they hesated TO per-
form the requirements of the Constitution and lava
Of the State by using this writ as means 70 see THAI
no pe,son within the boundaries of this State shall be
deprived Of bis personal liberty without the authority
cflaw. If this were rot so, the uty OF tne VII, OF
habeas CORPUS would not only be greatly invaded bat
in many instances il would become a name Without
substance II is idle TO say that the use oil tue VIII 10
this extent may be productive OF dangerous conse-
ouepces OF result in any serious collision between tho
Federal and the State officers So long as the func.
tiou sres Of these respective powers are true to tho
obligation and duties imposed upon them, so long az
they are careful not TO transcend the limits and scope
bod 70 hf ia IA
hepded. IF either, indeed should assume TO act In
derogation Of the prerogative of the other means
of correcting the evil would be very necessary but
we are not without that corrective. An unwarranta-
Bile infractOn of the jurisdiction of the State tribunals
by the Federal Courts would call forth an assertion
OF their prerogaves and power by the State Courts;
and If in this the latter were wrong peaceful means
of redress is afforded by resort to the Court OF der
nir res0rf-the Supreme Court OF the United States
whose decisions should and would be acquiesced in
by all parties.
Viewing this it lie presented by the return,
am OF the opinion that the restor is entitled 20 Do aus
charged from the custody of the Sheriff oil MILWAUKEE,
County, inasmuch the record OF conviction ana
sentence from the District Court of the United States
for this District by which his imprisonment Is sought
10 be justified presents no CONVICTION ana sentence u
an oneDse which that Court had jurisdiction over
On the argume Mt Of this case the counsel Tor inc
ielator insisted upon distinct ground for tho dis
charge
unconstitutional end void. correct understanding
Of the views Of that question: taken and Expressed
by the several members of this Court at the last Tem
would perhaps have rendered il unnecessary TO urge
this point in the present case. | need only remark
that upon this question We each entertain the opinion
then expressed.
The case of Sherman NJ. Booth which was argued
ard cor sidered in connection with this case, is sub
stantally disposed Of in the foregoing opinion. The
defect OF jurisdiction in the IT, g. District Court s
equally patent in his case and therefore believe he
is entitled to be released from Imprisonment.