New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-05-28
CONFLICT OF JURlsDICTION.

the lately published full opinion of the Supreme
Court of the United States in the Wisconsin case,
"a containing the doctrine laid down by the Court
respecting the duty Of Msrshsl- of the United
States in case they afe served with wrlts of
habeas corpus issued b. State authority. We have
not yet seen the full report FROM which The Intel
Hgeneer quotes, but from the specimen thus
selected frcm it, it would not seem to be very
logical, very consistent. very coherent or very
conclusive.
The point at which the Supreme Court of the
United States WISHES to arrive is obvious enough
1t wishes to establish the doctrine that all process
bearing the seal Of the United States Courts shall
be lisbe to examination, as to its validity and the
lawfnlness Of its issue. only in the United States
Courts and that persons protesting to act as Off
GERS of the United States 10 the service Of such
process shall be liable to have their right TO act in
that character. and the lawful extent and rIghtful
exercise of their authority as such officers, eX-
amintd only by the Court from which the process
purport. TO issue, or by some other superior United
States tribunal The snort, easy, and Ineligible
melted to accomplish this object would be to direct
the Marshals of the United States to pay no atten-
ton to any wtits Of habess corpus issued by State
authority, thus turning the parties disposed to
question the formal validity of the Marshals pro.
cess, the authority upon which it had issued,
or the way in which it had been executed, to the
United States Courts. The Supreme Court, how
ever. does not venture to go that length, and, in
failing to do so, appears to US to give up its
whole case and, in fact, to concede the very point
in dispute.
The Supreme Court of the United States while
it declares it to be the duty of Marshal served
with State writ of babeas corpus to "refuse to
" obey the mandate or process Of any other Gov
eminent" yet at the time. declares it to
be his duty 'to make In ,wn, BY proper return,
." the authority" under which he detains his
prisoner. As if this making Known at the de-
mand of another Government the authority under
which be acts vas not in itself an obedience to the
mandate or procrss Of that other Government.
The Marshal il seems. is so far to obey that man
date as to make known the grounds on which ne
detains his prisoners but at the same time, 1t is his
duty mot to take the prisoner, nor suffer him 10
." be taken, before State Judge or Court upon
habeas corpus issued under State authority
81 No State Judge or Court, after they are judi
I" cially informed that the party is imprisoned
under the authority of the United States, has
any right to interfere with him. or to cause him
to be brought before them" Nobody ever dis
puted that. But suppose that, after due exainn-
alton of the Marshal's return, the State Court
I'll har "a, fha lusiOn al
the prisoner is not imprisoned under the
authority of the United States, and that
no authority can be found for such inprison-
ment in the Constitution Of the United States, or
any law authorized by it-what then To admit
that the Marshal is bound to make known to the
State COuit issuing the writ Of hsbeas corpus the
authority under which be detains the prisoner,
does certainly seem to imply right in the State
Court to Judge of the sufciency Of that authority
Otherwise, why go through the empty farce OF re-
curing the Marshal to make any return at all
And it. upon an examination of that authority, the
Court is satisfied that it is not valid, then, of course
an imperious obligation is imposed upon it, which
il cannot shake off, to put an end to tots wrongful
imprisonment BY his very appearance in the State
Court the Marshal has submitted himself to its
authority. ard, iii be bis duty to make known by
a return TO the Court the authority BY which ne
acts how can he avoid the consequence of Il deci
sion BY the Court that his authority is not sufi-
cient!
TheSupreme Court Of the United States, BY way
of encours ging the United States Marshals to resist
any attempt by the State Courts to control them
in the custody Of those whom they hold as prison.
ers, and to call to their aid any posse that may be
necessary to maintain themselves against the State
Courts, takes occasion to observe that " Judicial
process, whatever form it may assume, can have
"any lawful authority outside of the limits Of the
Jurisdiction of the Court or Judge BY whom il is
issued" and that " an attempt to force it beyond
these boundaries is nothing less than lawiess
violence all that is very true, but it is
truth which tells quite strongly, to say the least
against the United States Courts as against the
State Courts. The State Courts are Courts Of
general jurisdiction, and it is their duty to guar
antee the personal liberty of every person within
their jurisdiction against whom there does
not exist some lawful cause Of detention.
The United States Courts are, in their nature
and origin, courts Of limited and restricted
jurisdiction. They have no right to NEEDLE
with any person or any question over whom
ard over which the Constitution of the
United States, or laws enacted in conformity with
that Constitution, do not give them jurisdiction
Outside of the limits Of that jurisdiction, no judi
cisl process which they can issue has any lawful
authority. Such was the very ground taken By
the Supreme Court Of Wisconsin, with this supple.