Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1862-07-30

'..t't, oill rates p per cent lower.
IvroRTsNT prCusI"S IN IEryPrScE 10 Dr
'tt EFe Judge ogden, cf New Jersey has TCn-
r,-Tcd very important decision in reference TO
64seItCrs end mUtinous soldiers The esq y-ax
i'.tl 81 the State - &. Never TulicE lieutenant
'''cEsi II the I'd regiment IF District Of Column
volunteers, on Eabeas corpus In matter Of de
i..'icn Of frrGCTf K kHiCsch IT,
iEc writ Trs allowed on application 81 the
'..s"n-Ts f-taHr, "EC, IN Lis T.li.lcn set forth
'-'i BIS e'l, under the 81 Of Gig bCCn yrsr, was
sEHlH detained by The defendant ZHlIch At
-. ctuIn Of The writ The defendant produced the
'-aE II the prisoner, and made return that he
"..a.Hcd him because, ON the Jlst Of January
&c. Ec Lad duly enlisted, and was Voluntarily
Worn as a'oldieL Of The army Of the United states
la"ompauy {, 81 District Of Columbia volunteers;
i.t he enlisted for three Years or the war uple.s
s'oEer discharged, and that at the time Of enlist
tnt he represented himself 20 De 81 years Of age;
raat sfte-wards, and during the term Of service
De deserted and fed 20 the city OF Newark n T.
where he vas arrested and detained a,d was
Sc2-t 10 oe delivered up TO his commander at
" ashlnEtcn, 10 be tiled by court-Inart;aI
lhe Petitioner trausTsed the return In writing
~ Ge:DinI that his son was duly enlisted az a
''t'er IN tho army Of the United States or sworn
~ - SET forth In the return sitting that ut the
me OF The pretended enlistment be was ind ,T II
vars Of age, with his father in Newark; and that
We pretended enlistment was without the knoy-I-
,a-C or consent Of the father or mother, or guar
HHsH, or master Of the infant. He also denie,
'lat the prisoner Is a deserter from the army, and
alleges tina; Is arrest, confinement and detention
are illegal and unjust
Al toe time and place fixed for hearing, the
district attorney OF the United States In behalf OF
tie officer, moved that the prisoner be remanded
l. custody, because the return showed a state of
facts which Invested State tribunal Of iurisdc-
lion. 1t was commended, that inasmurE as the
rarity judicially apprized Judge Ogden that the
return was in custody under the authority OF II e
nited -tates, he acting under the authority Of
Inc state, could proceed no further with the In
The indictmentthus brought up the interesting
question, whether in such cases the authority OF
'Es general government Is supreme and the iuris-
Il Clon OF lis Judicial tribunals is exclusive or
Nle'Eer tie state tribunals In the use Of the writ
81 as corpus. have concurrent jurisdiction
win that o. the United Stats in granting relief
IN cl@e OF unlawful imprisonment, by an officer
q the Cnited states under color or by pretext OF
lie authority Of the United States.
Ater reviewing decision, Of Mr.. Justice South
afS- Chief Justice Kent and Chief Justice L new,
wherein IL j. set forth that State Courts may moi
Interfere with arrests made by United states eu-
tL"rity, or In pursuance Of United States laws.
rye ogden after stating that "eIigenciCs Of the
vice certainly require that the contracts Of en-
''HHht should be rigldly enforced, where they
rot void for Illegally; and public policy and
" ,heCtlyencSs of our armies demand Unlformi-
~ dzcisicns In matters Of such vital Interests
'nilsHntnts are made under the laws Of the Uni.
i't ~RtCsr CNn'tltutlcnaliy enacted, continues
10 Tho construction Of the laws for cnlIstnCnts
and II the rules and articles Of WAL be entrusted
2" State tribunals, the decisions NAV vaTy with
St''..cS urcu toe doctrines Of State sovereignty:
aad dCsCTtCTs nc thus encouraged to betshc them
s.lvCs - SfatCS, where lax views might prevail
''S"c-ting the Importance Of maintaining the in
i'.fty Of eur In the existing national din.
,uiics- " this case rested on the legality Of
''- enlistment, 7 should decidedly incline 20
.','e NE l'stlucneT 10 the sCtlon Of the Federal
L'tnt Cclcncl Zullch was acting under orders
l'''l Ll3 superior In command; and Is such order
"It.'f'Eth MN TO pursue and capture desCTteIs
'dt itafheu JldSc held that "hc Yves not required
a. knOw Tue facts OF the case beyond those which
show jurisdiction In the authority by which be
Nas depuuEcd-thc enlistment and dcsertIcp ~
JhC prisoner T"
o. BY the roth article of war, dercrtion IL made
Ugh crime, punishable by court martial. and
lhC quesIion presented by this branch Of the case
U.s. whether the due administration Of iuaiIce
should be retarded bY the Of the witt Of hear
'''Gns, and person charged with crime and I'm
-sl'dy on Criminal process 6c permitted 10 arrest
lEC proceed 60 behind the pIocers and show
tta' nc was Incapable I'm law Of committing the
"Dente Charged upon him, tC.wit that his enlist
meat was voidable
- think that only one true answer can be
given TO the proposition Mutiny IL made a crime
by TIE seNenth article OF war; but could il be
Sfa'SIy lhss1eo that soldier who had entered
me IanEs OF the army and had excited, caused or
JolEsd In a mutiny, which had resulted in the
ztIULs eLSo sanlLznon OF the troops or company
would, when under arrest and before trial by
court martial, on application OF one having =
Ilghtto his services or custody throuS h intefno-
f.t'nn 81 the wit Of habces corpus deIsv ~ -,
FaPs prevent Trial for the oifense by Shout mo-
that there was defect In his enlistment
1bs statement OF The proposition sugges,s The
CrlT safe answer The return OF Colonel ZnlicS
sTs Ihat the person IS In custody for a oTImc
i.g .fs aTrtai through competent aUtL0Flty an
- suthOii ed 10 continue him =. r-s---s- y