The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-07-13

be regretted that the sheriff was severely injured la
this recJunter bat any fact is established in this
case, IL is that these injuries resulted from the Sc
we're conflict in the attempt 70 disarm him. In such
a contest the degree OF force which may be used
cannot be graduated with absolute precision.
Ii the writ put into the hands Of the Sheriff had
been issued in good faith, aud were the well known
writ OF habeas corpus, requiring the deputy mar
shas 20 produce the bodies of. the prisoners for
the purpose OF enquing into the cause Of their
detention, IL would have been the duty Of those
officers to take the persons before the Judge. IL
not as matter OF legal obligation, the courtesy due
TO the authorities Of another jurisdiction would
have required this, In doing this they would have
retained the possession Of the prisoners as no state
Judge IL may be presumed would have authorized
their discharge when II was made known u MIN
that they were held under valid United States
thoity But, as before noticed, the writ under the
extraordinary Ohio law Of 1855, requiring the officer
10 whom IL Is directed to take the prisoners no mat
ter by whom by what authority they are detained,
is a wholly different thing. This act seems 70 have
been inconsiderately passed. and in its practical
cution must lead TO frequent conflicts between the
national and State authorities. IL might, with great
propdety be designated ~ an act TO prevent the
execution Of tue laws Of t1e United States within
the State of OHIO.
II seems clear that the deputy marsh his were right
under the circumstances of this case in resisting the
attempt To rescue the prisoners ron their custody
Judge Nelson, one Of the Justices Of the Supre ne
Court of the United Staes has stated the Law this
point with great force and accuracy. While he
will he justified in granting habeis corpus for
prisoner in confinement under United States pro-
cess, he asserts that II tie process Ia legal the OH
having the person in large will not be justified In
surrenderng that custody under any Circumstances.
The learned Judge says:-"In such case, that is
where the prisoner ia In fact held under process is
sued by federal tribunal under the constitution, or
q law Of the United States a treaty IL Is the duty
Of an officer not TO give him up or TO allow him TO
pass from his bands at any stage Of tn proceedings
He should stand upon his authority; and If resisted,
maintain IL with all the power conferred on him for
that purpose" q BIatchford's Rep. $751; Even in
cases where there is concurrent jurisdiction In the
general government and STATE, 1t IL well settled
both by the a1judications Of the federal and State
courts, that the tribunal TO which the jurisdiction
first attaches shall retain H. In the case parfe
Jenkins, before cited Judge Grier says;-"Wnere
persons and property liable to seizure and arrest
by the process OF bJth, that which first attached
should have the preference. Any attempt Of either
10 take them from the legal custody Of the officers
OF the other would be an unjusti6i able exercise u
its power and lead TO most deplorabe consequeu-
ces" Such In the law where there u an admit
ted concurrent jurisdiction. With how much
greater force does II apply where the right "