Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1857-07-30
JUDGE LEvITTs OPINION.

Il Is not our purpose to comment ct laFgs on
Judge Lsvitl's opinion. But it may be OBSERVES
to point out the defects Of that opinion, that IhSy
msy be thoroughly examined by The younger
members Of tbs Bar
1. 10 the first place, The Judge does MOI, for
be could not, say that the United States Courts
can take men from the criminal jurisdiction Of the
State Courts. lie proceeds upon q different
ground-that the habeas corpus issued BY the
State authorities was Illegal, aud therefore the
Deputy Marsbals bad a right to resist it.
/. To arrive at this, be goes back, and invss-
tigstes all the preliminary proceedings; in other
words trying both parties, which We hold, under
simple writ Of AaJsas corpus Is. at least, stretch
ing jurisdiction.
3. But, thereby to crown The whole, be says
the STATE Courts have 20 wright to issue a wri. Of
ha5eas corpus for a prisoner 10 custody Of .
United States officer. This argument on this
point, We report for the sake Of reference:
Without a critical notice Of these cases, It may
be sufficient to remark that the doctrine seems nov
10 be settled that State Judge has no jurisdiction
to issue a writ Of kaJsas corpus for prisoner il
custody Of an officer Of the United States, if th
fact Of such custody is known to him before issue
ing the wit. And It is well settled. that If upor
the return Of the writ It appeau that the prisone
is 10 custody under the authority Of the United
States the jurisdiction Of the State Judge is at al
end, AID all other proceedings BY him are void
In the case Of SIMS reported 10 7th Gushing
Rep. .2s5, the Supreme Court Of Massachusetts, de
cidel, that in all cases "before a wri. of hGbeG
corpus is granted. sufficient probable cause mus
be shown, but When it appears upon the party
own showing that there is no sufficient groub'
, prima faeis for his discharge. the Court wi
not issue the writ; and again the Court says: q
is not granted as a matter Of course and the CouI
|. will nOs grant the writ Of habsas corpus whe
they see, that in the result, they must remand Il
] party" In the case of Norris vs.. Newton an
> others, s Mclean 92, Judge McLesn says,
have no hesitation in saying that the judicial OF
!. GERS of State under its own laws, in case whe
# an unlawful Imprisonment shown by one
e more affdayits, may issue writ Of hdbeas corp
!. and inquire into the case Of detention II
d learned Judge, it will be noticed, has reference
at an imprisonment under the authority OF the VI
ted States. and decides as the condition OF which
y State Judge may issue writ Of habeds corpus, th
- Il shall be first shown by affidayts or otherwi
e. that sueh Imprisonment is UniaWfal. And
holds, that when It is known to the Judge tt
the imprisonment is under law of The Unit
d States, bis jurisdiction ceases and all further p
ID ceedings in the case will be eOra more Jadies.
Y. On this, we remark that there is mis:ak
te idea at the bottom of this. What does writ
b habeas corpus relate tof 1t does not relate to
y. conflicting jurisdiction Of Courts at ALL 1t rela
i;c the rights demandable Of course, and has no II
as ton whatever to the respective jurisdictions oil
f, State and Federal Courts. 1t is writ which
1t imprisoned citizen has right to demand Of
m Court. and which no Court, has right to reir
Of That the Government of !hs United States Is
oh amount, in its legitimate Constitutional functi'
or. is truism not to be denied. But, is all that
or. ministerial officers Of United States assume to
IL their functions really So not to be inquired in
60, Are citizens of Ohio to be kidnapped, and no
he ouiry made into the fact by State COurtsF
h think not, and they who undertake to mant
ho that doctrine will be likely to find full empI
80 mept for both their heads and their hands.-C
| Gazette.