Mineral Point tribune. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1854-1858, 1855-02-14
OPINION OF JUSTICE CRAWFORD.

! In re the petition Of JoHy RrcRAFr to be dis
| charged from illegal m,pr1sonneat.
! Since the decision in the case of Sherman NJ
| Booth which came before IT'S by certt0raii at the
/ last term OF this court, have taken occasion to
review the option given by me in thai case, in
order TO discoTer whether had erred in any of
| the positions there assumed by me.
! That opinion was written during the active du-
ties of general term, and without an opportu
/ nty for great deliberation The result of nv re
examination of that case, however, has produced
no change in my views of II; and so far as the
! questions then presented are involved in the dis
position of the present case, deem ii only neces-
sary to say, that my opinion then given remains
| unchanged.
! The simple question which attracts my atten-
ton in this case is, whether the District Court OF
the United States for this District had Jurisdiction
/ of the offence Of which this petitioner was con
victed in that court because if it had iurisdic-
ton. il matters not how illegal. unjust arbitra-
! ~ the proceedings in that court may have been,
nor how many errors may have been committed
! upon the trial; if the court had jurisdiction OF
the subject and of the person charged, it is by no
means my duty as Judicial officer of this State,
to revise the decision correct the errors of that
! court, in properly within its cognizance
That is the function of superior federal tribunal,
! if such revising power Were provided or given, or
| deemed necessary by Congress.
The District Court of the United States for this
District, is court of special limited jurisdic-
ton. 1t can take cOgnlZance OF offences punisha
| bic by the laws OF the United States and of such
offences it has exclusive jurisdiction but il pos
sesses no power 10 take cognizance OF, or punish
/ offences against the laws of the State OF these
latter, the State tribunals have a jurisdiction
equally as exclusive as is the jurisdiction of the
federal courts over offences provided for blythe laws
of Congress. 1t cannot be necessary to refer TO
authorities to sustain this position. Il is a well
settled principle, that Courts of inferior limit
ed jurisdiction, which do not proceed according
TO the course Of the common law, but derive their
special authority from statutory provisions, are
confined strictly to the exercise of the powers
conferred upon them, and the facts necessary to
give them jurisdiction must appear alGrmatiEeIy
on the face OF their proceedings, and cannot be
presumed.
1t is not denied that this principle applies to all
mere inferior tribunals but that it extends 10 the
circuit and district OF the United States
has been frequently denied by the supreme court
OF the United States
In Kempe's Lessee VS.. Kennedy, 6 Cranch
1857 that court held that the courts of the
United States all OF limited jurisdiction, and
these proceedings are erroneous, If the lursdic-
ton be not shown uTon them Judgments rem
dered in such cases may certainly be reversed
bat this court is not prepared TO say that they
are absolutely utilities which may be totally dis
regarded" So also in Mccormack vs. Sullivan,
speaking
the inferior courts of the United States say
They are all Of limited Jurisdiction, bat they
are not on that account Inferior courts in the
technical sense OF those words, whose judgments
taken alone, are TO be disregarded" The same
doctrine is illustrated and acted upon in er gur5e
Tobias " atkins. 6 Peters 50, and in Kennedy
ct al vs.. Georgia State bank ct al Is How. 5S61
and he basis of the rule must be found in that
presumption of jurisdiction which the law raises
that the solemn adjudcations Of court of record
have been given IN cases only in which il had
power to act. This presumption certainly ap-
plies to all courts OF general jurisdiction aud for
the purpose of the present case and in obed fence
to the decisions of the supreme court OF the Uni
ted States already clted we may apply it to the
district court Of the United States for this district
but II the record OF Judgment or proceeding
in that or any other court whatever should come
before collateralIy, and upon the face OF The
record, it was apparent that the court had no
jurisdiction TO render any Judgment in the prem
ises, we would not and could not hesitate to dis
regard it; there the presumption in favor of the
validity of the proceedings would be DESTROYED
and the Judgment would be of no force sup
pose, for instance, that Judgment record coming
fTom court of general jurisdiction, should dis
close the fact that without altoTding the deleudant
opportunity to make defence. and without in
any manner citing him 10 appear. either by ser
vice Of n1esne process or otherwise the court had
proceeded CT pa1fe and rendered a Indictment
against the defendant. surely we would be justified
IN treating the proceeding coranl non JUDGE.
Now, the return made by the Sheriff of Mil
YANKEE county in this case, contains a record Of
the proceedings In the district court in which
this relator was convicted and sentenced which
not only takes away mere presumption. bat in
conieslbiy shows, that the district court had no
jurisdiction Of the subject complained OF in the
counts of the Indictment upon which he was con-
Vlcted and II this position be true, may ap-
proPTlateiy use the language of Judge Evans in
the case OF I'LL VS.. Robertson. & Strobbarr-s
Law Il " It would be waste of words to
attempt 10 prove, that the proceedings OF a court
OF limited jurisdiction, are absolutely void, and
may be 50 declared, whenever the question is pre-
sented' whether directly or coateraly"
The Indictment npon which this relatar was
tried and convicted in the district court. contained
three counts, the first of which may be considered
as properly charging offence within the seventh
section or the Act Of Congress of Sept. IS. 1850
known as the Fugitive Slave Law" The second
and third counts, however, do not, in my opinion
set forth or charge an offence punishable by any
statute OF the United States, or OF which the Dis
trct Court has any jurisdiction whatever
The relator was found guilty charged in the
second and third counts OF the indictment. bat
was not convicted Of the offence charged IN the
hrst count. so that if the counts which the con-
viction took place do not show case within the
jurisdiction OF the court the conviction and sen
fenee are not only unauthorized by law, but are
cpraHl non 55,9ice
The second count charges that sJohn Rycraft.
&c, at &c-, on &c, knowingly and wilfully. did
aud, d5st and assist one Joshua Glorer 10 escaBe
from the custody Of Chs C. Cotton, then and there
being deputy of the Marshal of the United
States for the district of Wisconsin, he the said
Joshua Glover, having been heretofore apprehen-
ded by, and then and there being in the custody of
the said Cotton &c. The count then proceeds
70 recite the warrant by virtue of which said
Glover was appreheodei, aid which had been is
s'.ed by the Hon. Andrew G. Miller, Judge OF the