M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1855-04-27

CHuTBCo W tHc Huc SV"''0J " '"~' " ''S
UHitsd States"
Ii must be fecollected tha. when the
habeas corpus was served upon the Mar
shal, the case before the Commissioner
was 10 progress, and near its termina
ton. Is there any precedent for such
a pToceduTe1 II the State Court had a
concurrent power, the proceeding would
have been irregular and void. Under
the same government could MOI have
interPosed. But that Court OF a diff.
ferent government could interpose in
this form is sanctioned BY no law or
precedent. Before the Supreme Court
of Wisconsin reversed, as a Court OF Er
rors. the decision of the District Court,
it had the grace to wait until tha. Court
had finally decided.
II is not unusual in legal proceedings
10 plead former recovery or a former
ncquittsl. Can any Court interpose in
such cases, and take the case from the
Court in which the jurisdiction is yes
ted? If the Commissioner did wrong,
does that authorize the State Judge to
interpose by writ of kGbeus corpus, and
withdraw the case from the federal ju
risdiction7
II is d general principle of law, to
which ! know of no exception, that the
laws Of every government shall be con
strued by itself, and such construction
is acted upon by the judiciary of all 9TH
er countries.
By the Federal Constitution, "the ju.
aicial power Of the United States is de.
clsred TO be vested in one Supreme Court
aud in such inferior Courts as the Con.
gress may from time to time oTisin and
establish" Under this provision the
judiciary OF the Union gives construc.
tion Of the laws, which is obligatory on
the State tribunals. The Constitution
again declares that the Constitution and
laws OF the United States, which shall
be made in pursuance thereof, and oil
treaties made, or which shall he made
under authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme law Of the land /;
and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, anything in the consti'
tuition or laws of any State to the con
tIary notwithstanding.
The construction Of the statutes Of the
different States, except where the Su-
preme Court Of the Union exercises an
appellate power, has uniformly been
followed by the United States. This
has been carried so far, by the Supre me
Court, as to reverse its own decisions to
conform to change in the decisions in
the State Court, and this was on the
ground Of policy, 20 avoid two rules Of
property IN the same State, 1t has been
considered as no degradation by the Su
preme Court 10 follow the established
construction Of the local laws by the
Courts Of the States. There is no in.
stance, il is believed. where a Federal
Court has disregarGed the decisions OF
Stale Conrt, where it possessed no sp-
pellate power.
Some years ago an individual was in.
dicted for a capital ofrense in the Cir
cult Court Of the United States, in which
that most learned and able man, Judge
Story, presided. The individual was in
prison, under State process, for debt or
come petty offense. The District Attor.
ney of the United States moved the
Court TO issue a hGJeds corpus to bring
the defendant before the Court; but that
learned Judge held that he had no pow.
er TO issue the writ for that purpose.
Some year or two ego a case milar in
principle occurred in the Circuit Court
Of the United States for Ohio, and thai
Court held ii had no power to take the
defendant from the State jurisdiction -
IN such cases, in this State. an arrange
ment has been made with the State au
thority to order the accused to be de.
livered to the Marshal, with pledge
that he should he returned 10 the State
jurisdiction. And where a concurrent
jurisdiction exists in the Federal and
State Courts, the Federal Courts have
uniformly held the suit in these Courts
TO be abated where the same cause of
action had been sued in the State Court.
cannot withhold the expression OF
ny surDise at the earnest, if not inJig
nant, manner in which the counsel spoke
OF the conduct Of the Commissioner in
Issuing his warrant after the decision OF
the Probate Court on the hubeas corpus;
and en- intimat tion was thrown out that
If the peace Of the country is 10 be pre-
served, more respect must be shown by
the federal authority to the decisions oI
the State Court,
There is not the least foundation for
this feeling and expression. 1t arise.
!rom sn entire misconseption Of the
case under consideration. The Commits.
sioner Of the United States issued his
warrant 10 srfest the supposed fugitive
from labor. on the application Of the
master. There is no evidence that he
had any knowledge Of the previous de-
cis!on Of the Probate Judge. No one.
suppose, will allege that he had the le.
gal evidence of the fact; but suppose the
record had been presented to him, did
ne show any want of respect to the
State Court by issuing the warrant and
inquinng into the mplaint7 This by
no means prejudiced the right of the fu.
gitivs, ss the previous decision could b.
set up in bar of the procedure, if such
decision were final.
But have an authotity on this point
Some ten years ago habeGs corpus was
issued by the Circuit Court of the Uni
ted States, for the Eastern District o.
New York, TO bring before IL an indiyi