The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1859-06-04

opIHioH Vi tue supreme IGuft OF the nj
ted States in the Wisconsin case. as con-
tanning the doctrine laid down by the
Court respccting the duty OF Marshal. OF
the United States in case they are served
with writs Of habcas corpus issued BY
State authority. We have not vet seen
the full repor. from which The MteNi.
gencer quotes, but from the specimen
thus selected from it, j. would no. seem
to be very logical, very consistent, very
coherent, or very conclusive.
The point at which the Supreme Court
OF the United States wishes 10 arrive is
obvious enough. 1t wishes to establish
the doctrine that all process bearing the
seal Of the United States Courts shall be
liable to examination, as to its validity
and the lawfulncss of its issue, only in
the United States Courts, and that per.
sous protesting to act a. officers of the
United States in the service of such pro.
cess, shall De liable to have their right TO
act in that character, aud the lawful ex-
tent and rightful exercise OF their au.
thoriiy as such officers, examined only
by the Court from which the process
purports to issue, or by some other supe.
rior United States tribunal. The short,
easy, and Ineligible method to accom-.
plish this object would be TO direc, the
Marshals Of the United States to paw no
attention to any writs Of tabeas corpus
issued BY State authority, thus turning
over the parties disposed to question the
formal validity of the Marshars process.
the authority upon which it had issued,
or the way In which ii had been oxecu,.
ed, to the United States Courts. The
Supreme Court, however. does not ven
ture to 60 that length, and, in failing to
do so, appears to us to give up its whole
case, aud, in fact. to concede the very
point in dispute.
The Supreme Court of the United
States while it declares i: to be the duty
Of Marshal served with a State wri, Of
habeas corpus to "refuse to obey the man.
" date or process Of any other Govern.
"ment,' yet, At the same time, declares
1t to be his duty "to make known, BIZ a
proper return, the authority" under
which he de,ains his prisoner. As il
this making known, at the demand of an.
other Government, the authority under
which he acts was not in itself an ODE.
dience to the mandate or process of that
other Government. The Marshal. i,
seems, is so far to obey that msnd date as
to make known the grounds on which he
desains his prisoner; but, at the same
time, i. is his duty mot to take the pris.
toner, nor suffer him to be taken. befar,
"a State Judge or Cour, upon a habea,
corpus issued under State authority"
" No State Judge or Conrt, after thew
"are judicially informed that the party
is imprisoned under the authority of
"the United States, has any right to in.
"terfere With him, or to cause him to be
"broughs before them Nobody ever
disputed that. Bat suppose that, after
due examination of the Marshaps "a.
turn, the State Court or Judge should
have come to the conclusion that the
prisoner is not imprisoned under the au
thority of the United States. and tina, no
authority can be found for such impris.
onraeps in the Constitution of the I'M.
ted States, or any law authorized by it
what then! To admit tina. the Marshal
Is bound to make known to the State
Court issuing the writ of habeas cernn.
the authority under which he de,ains the
prisoner, does certainly seem to inplv a
RICH; in the State Court 10 iud,e of n.
suthciency Of that authority. Otherwise.
why 60 through the empty farce of re-.
curing the Marshal to make any return
at all And if, upon an examination Of
tina, authority, tn. Court Is satisfied that
l. is not valid, then, Of course, an imperi.
obligation is imposed upon it, which it
cannot shake OF, to put an end TO this
wrongful Imprisonment. By his very
appearance In the State Court. the Mar.
shall has submitted himself to its author.
isy, and, ifit be his duty to make known
by return to the Court the au,hor;., hv
which he acts, how can he avoid the con.
sequence of decision by the Court tina,
his authority is not sufficient?
The Supreme Court of the United
States, by way Of encouraging the mi.
ted States Marshals to resis, any a,tcm,,
by the State Courts to control them n
the custody Of those whom they hold =,
prisoners, and to call to their aid anv
posse that may be necessary TO main,a;n
themselves against the State copy,s
takes occasion to observe that "no ;uai.
=" cial process, whatever form it NAV as.
sumo, can have any lawful AUTHORITY
" outside of the limits Of the jurisdiction
''of the Court or Judge BY whom Il il
" issued, and that "an atsemnt 10 force
I" il beyond these boundaries Is NOTHING
7" less than lawless violence" An rhat
is very trnc, ba. it is truth which tell,
quite as strongly, to say the least, against
the United States Courts az against rho
State Courts. The State Courts are
Courts Of general Jurisdiction. and il !,
their duty to guarantee the personal lib.
srty of every person within their iuris.
1iction against whom there does not exist
some Iewful cause or detention. The
United States Courts are, in their nature
md origin, courts Of limited and restrict.
ID jurisdiction. They have no rich, 70
neddle with any person or any question
,yer whom and over which the Consti,u.
ion Of the United States, or laws enact
d in conformity with that Gems ti.u,ion.
10 not give them Jurisdiction. Outside
# the limits Of tina. Jurisdiction, no IN.
licial process which they can issue ia,
ny lawful authority. Such was tho
'ery ground taken by the Supreme Cour.
+ Wisconsin, with this supplement. to il:
hat in case Of parties imprisoned by this
awles. violence, under the disguise Of
United States process, it was the duty OF
he State Courts to interfere for their
ischarge. The great difficulty is-and |