New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-03-03

another an6, for the purposes OF tnn qse's ~. -
foreign jurisdiction, be cannot, Dy inc neIo 49,
subsequent arrest, be delivered hom suca &C., aS
al, Doris case. Howard Rep. lo5, Jpogo
in giving the opinion OF the Supreme coun,
s,aycIv susfsips the position just stated Thai was
an aIrlica,ion for bsbeas corpus TO denver DOT
from in1urisor rt Mt IN the state oil Rhode fsano anu
urdsr o serterce for treason commit ssaans. has
STATE .Judge Mclean says: neither this nor any
olfr Court Of the United states, FOR Judge tnereot
scan issue kqleas corpus to bring rp prisoner who
is in custody uncer the SENTENCE or execution OF
State Court for any other purpose than 70 oe ustd
asa w,re,s. And il is nmaterial whether tse I'M
'pri,onment be under cirI or criminal prect";
"If il be true as there asserted, that no Federal
Court can interfere with the exercise OF me P1pss
jurisdiction Of State Court, either in cv OF cnmt
nal case the converse Of the proposition Is eqrany
tue And il results that State Court cannot tskc
from an fcer OF the United States even on criminal
charge tie custody Of persop in execution on GIVE
case.
1T il said in argument that II these persons casnct
be held by the arrest Of the Sheriff under the State
process, the rights ard dignity Of Ohio are invaded
thout the possibility of redress. cannot concur II
tlis view. The Constitution and laws Of the United
States provide for reclamation Of these persoBs by
demand on the Executive OF Kentucky. II is true, Il
row r,msnded to the claimant and taken back 70
Kertucky as slaves they cannot be said 10 have fed
from Justice in Ohio; but il would clearly De q case,
within the spirit and intention Of the Constitution and
the Act OF Congress- and trust that nothing would be
hazsrded BY the prediction, that upon demand prop
orGer them to be surrendered to the authorities Of
Ohio 10 answer 10 s violated law. am sure Is not
going too far to say that II the s,rcness OF the law did
not require this, an appeal to comfy would not be IN
vain. :.
"Bu, cannot expand on this question. should
have been graiied If time and the nature OF my en-
gagements had allowed me to enter more fully into its
confederation, and to have noticed the numerous
authorities cited in the argument In my present cir
cumstspces, this has been impossible
This decision was pronounced in full Court; no
signs of approval or otherwise were given. Mr. Head
ington ID that the parties ought to be in Court anG
fou ally delivered over; as they not, be desired
the Judge 10 see his client secured in his rights.
Judge Hoodley said there would be no difficulty;
his client would give up the fngitives as the Count
Mr. Chambers said his client, Mr. Gaines, author-
lied him to ssy that he would hold the woman, Mar
earet who had killed her child subject to the requsi
tion Of the Governor of Ohio 10 answer for any crime
she might have committed in Ohio.
Some other conversation was he'd. Judge Hoadley
desired the Court TO give the Sheriff certificate Of its
order that be might answer for non-peromapce of the
duee laid upon him by the capas put into his hands
by the State The Court agreed to furnish the desired
document
Mr. Headngton observed that when tiesMarshsl
took possession of the prisoners twoud not be tor the
lurroscs named in the writ OF habeas corpus but for
those for which the Commissioners certificate WINS
given.
Mr.. Hoadley was at loss to know exactly how the
decision eft the case and the Court spoke as II some
deep question that would require much attention II
entered into was not yet taken up. In fact, il ap.
apesred If the decision given did not cover all the
ground of conflicting jurisdiction which might arise.
The statement of Mr.. Chambers to his clients
holding Margaret subject TO jurisdiction, being some
WI at equvocal, ascertained from Mr. Gaines him
self what bis Infections lie informed us that he
should take Margaret back with him into Kentucky.
If the Governors Of Ohio and Kentucky came to an
understanding BY which requstion was made and
responded TO- that it became his lawful duty to sur
render her for trial in Ohio he should hold himself
ready to obey the law.
This decision, it will be noticed, covers only the
four adult fugitiyes. The decision of Judge Bugoyne
to the three little children, will be pronounced at
the Probate Court in the Court House, tomorrow
afternoon at O'Clock.