New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-01
STATE s&SGHrs.

Tie danger was very cAr!y foreseen o. most Sc
rieus conflict between the Courts of ..~ OF the
general States and the n,w Federal Courts crested
under the United States Constitution. y dlnt of
great prudence snd forbesranee on bott si3ee and
strong disposition to aTs:d, possible, 20 danger
Gus a. issue this conac. .lss hitherto been sssved
os: bat the recent decision Of the Supreme Court
of tie United States in he Wisconsin C.eye- res
cue case SCI III. 70 have Tlsced things in position
which renders this terpori5,ng policy 10 longer
available. To speak more e1actlS, the Supreme
Court Of the United States hns ceased % tempo
rze and hss boldly claimed. 40! for itseE oa.y, but
for every inferior Federal tribunal, down even t.
Commissioners Courts, en- absolutely exclusive in.
r.dotoa, free from any Interference or inquiry on
tie part Of tie State Tribunals, 81 70 eyc-y matter,
thug OF person over whi,h or whom any Of these
Federal Courts may choose 70 assume jurisdiction
TIE opinion Of tie CorT. II this case-destlned,
We think 10 become quite s. famous - tie DFed
Scott ease and forming part Of the sane system
of asurps,ion tending 70 tae concentrated of 81
power in tie Feders' J1dicisry-h. Lot Jet been
printed AZ length Tiers has yet sproIsed Only q
suausry or abstract Of & IS follows:
When person il il toe custody Can officer o.
the UsAed STATE s S.a.s nay indeed ssne WIT o;
SSeeAs c,rpus art the of;cef holding ire persou in
&C w must Ake 70 the wit = sar a. 20 snow
tbsi Re holds him uude: pseceP Of ths sied - seo
Coat. but 10 farther al iast taerecpoG Tie power
Of the Stale Court Is 9. I end. NeiEs - DE or ay
por The validity o! ths process tae Constitution
sity al the a. unieS Which the process lfsues cLr
sfsr such returr b. ibS1ired into, 81 ser upon W.T.
az habeas corpus fso-. S;a;e .rocaS4 o. upon GRy
other State process
- f -
corpus. when isi1sd bys Stats C0ur: Against $
Federal officer can be used FOR as other purpose
e1cep, 10 ssce7 an As; TIE o,Sos Is sctsg IL ia:
csrseity under ; vSasrAnt i.su.3 fTOn sOue Cn.te3
States Court. The moment LAT fact sPPea.s tie
State Court becomes Pososess; Il c.aao: 60
step further. No n-,;er Row informal
nor even Aow Invalid .Ae process nay be-
Ne matter iAOusk tie SCI o. Congress % which the
process pu-YoIis 10 be foCs3ei De ever % ua,oas'
;u,io-a. las: u 1Ooe Of sse eaGae. 81 AZ S.s.e
Court. asd they mus, 81 it.nd quietly By Id allow
,her citizen. 70 be dragged CT! Of tie STATE on II.
formal Q. Invalid processes, or 70 he hssa inprs-
oaed o. hGrs before .selT faces under GacJrstiso
20. :, ,c.. without fftins finger 10 prevent L.
TIE snly rene;y, Is there i' Az. s AZ spPeA 20
tie Supreme Cog;; Of TIE United States.
B., even this remedy, us3er 4. construct u
! which IL. sees p; o. TIE JGiiciAry SCI AID tie
Cost, z.ioa q tie United S'a'es II AVA. aio7i'y
q tie uos; inportAn. oA.es ha' 10 existence. Tie
/ Supreme COgI. Of TIE United States h.s ample al
t,orty TO cal tie Sac Co1rts 70 s-cO1l. sad %
correc: ter proceedings j, A. eases inyo,7los re
coas:I;lsonahiy, the elss.svctoa OF tie sPpEcs-
tioa Oi sc;s Of COasres.; eu. By ss.,scse anomaly
tatir power II .an respe-s over tie inferior Fed
srsl tribunals i f.r more limited. There "a 10 sp-
peal 10 TIC Supreme Court Of TIE United S!s.es II
criminal eases couins before these inferior tn
b1a,l., sd E,der re decision u2on wnich We ~.
commenting ihe.e tribunals become fnsl uizes II
ire IS: re.or! over most inportAa: ca,es Of cas-.
tie Supreme CO1rt Of tie United States raiini
70 orersgs, Of then ;.eI ser. II Il. decision IS :.
s,.1t. allowing tie STATE Co-r-a to do 80.
We -.y oS.-VTe o. IS v ..cocE- decsice, q =,