New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-07-24

Casting about for means wherewith 10 nufy
the Conscrption Law and resist the Draft,
disloyal men aud newspapers seemed TO have
agreed with considerable unanmty on a plan
for arraying the State against the Na,icsal
Government by help OF llabeas Corpus aud tho
State Courts. Ii VA. proposed that Whoever
was drafted should cue out hnbess corpus
from some Court presided over by a disloyal
Judge. and TINT upon the hearing on the writ
the Judge should pronounce the Conception
Act unconstitutional, and therefore discharge
the conscrpi, who was 10 20 on his way re-
ioicing. The recent Instructions OF Provost.
Marshnl.General Fry. in anticipation Of tina
purpose, direct his subordInates not to
produce tho dcserter or cODscrip. be-
fore State Court in obedience 10 n
writ of hsbca, corpus, aud the con,piIa.
tors whose plot is thus frustrated have made
rage upon the Judiciary and the rights Of the
States. They propOse that Marshal refusing
obedience 10 the writ shall be- proceeded
against by ATTACHING nj for contempt; that the
State Militia 10 enforce it, and finally that
Gov Seymour shall put himself u, the head OF
bis State troops in battle array against the
National forces. by the time this i. accom-
pli,hed, it ia expected that very material d.
version in favor OF the Rebellion will have
been accomplished; or in other words that n
Northern Rebellion shall be- organized with
military force. All this is based upon the sup
posed respect of the people for legal forms
and Constitutional rights. md nigh. be in that
view a very good plot but for one corsdera-
ton. The Supreme Court of the United Statts
has already decided tho question on which
this issue ia to be made and has decided 1t
adversely to the authority Of the State Courts.
The case Of AJieman aet. Booth, 81 How
nrds Supreme Court Reports, SOC, is well
known both to the legal profession and the
country. as that in which tho effort of tho
Supreme Court Of Wisconsin to protect a Cit.
zen of that State against Federal persecution
WAS finally defeated. Booth was arrested on
IA United States Commissioners warrant, for
aiding aud nbettIng the escape OF an alleged
fugitive who had been arrested under tho Flu
gitive Slave Act of 1850. He was discharged
from the custody Of the u. =. Marsha by the
Supreme Court of the State, on the ground
that the Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitu-
tional; exactly tho ground on which II is now
proposed that q conScript shall be discharged
no that the two cases are in oil respects iden-
teal. Booth was legally in the custody OF the u.
S. Marshal just as the conscrpt will be
legally in the custody Of the Provost Marshal.
But tho United States Court decides not
only that he should not have been discharged
because the law was constitutional, but goes
further and declares it to be the duty Of the
Marshal not TO obey the preoept Of the State
authority. He is to make known to tho State
Judge that he holds the prisoner under a
United States process. but he is not to produce
the prisoner in obedience to the writ OF habeas
corpus from the State Court. This decision is
tho unanimous opinion Of the Supreme Court of
the United States, and is pronounced by no less
person than Mr. Chief Justice fancy himself.
1t is 30 full and emphatic, and 40 completely
dispOses of the whole case, that We copy the
portion Of the opinion. Judge fancy
says:
We do not question the authority Of State Court
Judge who 10 authorized by tho laws Of the sts to issue
the wit Of hsbess corpus to issue II In any case where tho
party Imprisoned within lite territorial limits. provided
docs not when the application 10 made that the per
.on Imprisoned 10 In custody under the authority Of tho
has Ia iDuu ia