Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1857-07-16
From the Cincinnati Commercial.
Conflict of Laws-The Clark Coun-
ty Case--Decision of Judge

ty Case--Decision of Judge
leavitt.
The decision of the District Court of the
UniIed States for the Southern District OF
Ohio, in the Clark County Case, was render
ed yesterday by Judge Leavitt. the effect
being the discharge OF the Deputy Marshals
from the arrest to which they were subject
under the laws of Ohio. Want OF space
absolutely prohibits us from laying before
our readers the opinion at length, as it would
occupy nearly a page of our paper. Nor do
we deem it necessary. for the points decided
are few and easily understood, and in their
decision, the Judge has, without doubt, ad-
bered to what he believed TO be binding au-
thority.
The power to allow the writ of Habeas
Corpus in this case is claimed TO be given
BY the seventh section of the act of March.
1888, which provides:
That either of the Justice of the Sup
preme Court. or d Judge Of any District
Court, in addition to the authority already
conferred by law, sha have power to grant
writs of habsas corpus IN & Il cases Of pri-
soner or prisoners in jail or confinement irhen
he or they shall he committed or con- fined on
or by any authority of law for any act done,
or~smmitted to be done, in the pursuance Of a
iap Of the United States, or any decree of any
Judge or Courl thsreof-anything in any act
of Congress, to the contrary notwithstanding.
1t is holden by the Judge that the POI
to issue the writ and inquire into ts>------.-
of the detention, being established, the next
sul ject o inquiry is, whetf er the act for
which the party Is Imprisoned has been done
in III, discharge o official duty, under lie
authority contemplated in the above prnvi-
sion. II such is the case, it is the duty of
the Court Ia discharge him for his arrest
The following are The cases referred 10 by
the Judge in support of his opinion:
There is high Judicial authority for the
exercise of the power in question by Judge
OF The United ares, under the acr of 1888.
In the case. ex-rarte, Robinson, 6 Mclean,
355. known as the Ro>etta case, the facts
stated are thai a female slave. travelling in
company with her master, in the S'ate' CT
Ohio, was taken by writ of habeas corpus
before Probate Judge, at Columbus, and
adjudged by him to be free. She was after
v ards arrested by the Marshal, as fugitive,
upon warrant issued by g Commissioner;
and upon habeas c+pus issued by Judge
Park. Of the Court of Common Pleas of
Hamilton county, the alleged fugitive was
discharged from the custody OF the Marshal.
She was again arrested upon smother var
rant issued by the same Commissioner, and,
while in custody, and before ,the examina-
ton, BY the Commissioner, Judge Parker
adiudged the Marshal guilty of contempt
for resrresting the female; and he was COM
mi,ted to Jail under that judgment, Judge
Mclean, on the petition Of the Marshal. is
sued a writ of habeas corpus, returnable be-
fore him, and after full argument on the
facts stated, ordered the Marshal to be dis
charged from imprisonment The learned
Judge did not hesitate 10 issue the habpas
corpus under the statute of 1888, and ad-
mitted evidence OF the facts relating to the
Imprisonment of the Marshal, and discharg-
ed him, on the ground that he was imprison-
ed 'or an act admitted 10 be done in obedi-
ence TO law. Although in that case there
had been judgment by a Court of Record
that the alleged fugitive was entitled to her
discharge, this was not held to be pclusive;
and the Judge asserted the right. of going
behind the judgment and x lining the
whole proceeding. The result was, that
the Imprisonment Of the Marshal was de-
c!ared 10 be Illegal and for sn act omitted,
pursuant to law o. the United States. In
his opinion, the Judge says: "A sense nfI
duty compels me to say Chat the proceed
ings of the honorable Judge (Parker) wei e
not only without authority of law, but
sg,inst law, and that the proceedings are
VOID, and | am bound to treat them as a.
nullity.'
Another case. cited in argument, er parte
Jenkins, Q, Wallace, Jr., 52l, asserts. the
power OF Federal Judge to issue the writ
OF habeas corpus in all cases within the Ian
guage o, the act Of 1888, and 10 dis .'Iarge
under ali ciIcuuist ,Dcts. Hhe the i'm, ris H.
meni s for an cf done by authurit, o. thu
Unit, d States The learned Judge Grior.
OF the Supreme Court OF the United States,
in his opinion on that case says: The au-
thorty conferred on the Judges of the Unit.
ed srales, b. this act Of Congress, gives
them ali the power which any other Courr
could exercise. Or gives them none at all
II under such writ they may not discharge
their officrr,when imprisoned by anu authori-
ty, Tor an act done in pursuance of Jaw OF
the United States, it would be impossible
to discover for what use ul purpose the act
vas passrd. Is the prisoner to be brought
before them only that they may ackDowl-
edge their utter impotence to protect hrml'
The Court does not deny the power of
State Court to issue the write of aabeas cor
pus to inquire into the cause of any case OF
detention that may occur within its jurisdic-
ton, but holds that if, on such inquiry, it
shall appesr that the prisoner is in cnstudy