New-York daily tribune., 1863-09-03
JUDGE LE0HsWB'S EgpaEG!Eg.

Vermont, MASSACHUSETTS,, Iuu hdHsua.
sr-.s.-....r---rz--s-..svx
JUDGE LE0AsWB's EgpaEe!TS.
The insurrcctionary journals in this city seem
to bc not little distressed at the comments we
deemed il Our duty to make on Judge Lconards
extraordinary habeas corpus decision. We are
favored with very elaborate repetitions OF what
we did not say, but have failed to attract thclr
attention to the exposure of Judgc LeonaFdS
dishonesty in reference to the Booth case. Yet
the charge was then, it seemed TO Us, sufficient
" distinct to be understood, and the proof OF 1t
presented in some detail. Nevertheless, for the
benefit Of all concerned, NC will try to make It
little Ieplancr.
OF the decision Of The United States Supreme
Court in AJiemaa r. Booth, Judge Leonard
says:
IL. Of dbeman booth las been refcTedtp d y"
dca authority the ground TAKEN BY the Provost ha'ia
thl, the United STATES ais'E-l could not nave held
Booth without proc,.s Of law
lie then proceeds TO define what be under
stands b. process of Law" protesting to state
the facts in AbicmaH e. BoD'h:
ic language Of Judge y must he under'tood 10 sppy
the Il the before tAe Court at The time Loosh
was In custody on eorrieiion JoT criminal cG'He The Ma
.. there hal the process OF toe FEDERAL Court ofe' oo"'
tos. 1aaf eonssst>i me authority lac ios AocNs 'h'
pfi,,ner referred to by Judge Taacy"
In other words, Judge Leonard distinctly al
firms that the decision in Abtcmdn .. Booth Il
based on the fact that Booth was in custody
on conviction for criminal oiicnsc;" and that
that conviction" constituted the only authority
tor holding him against the habeas corpus of the
State Court. The decision was not based Oh
that fact. If that conviction did not constitute
the only authority for holding the prisoner, then
Judge Leonard he's falsifed the record.
Now we affirm that it was not based on that
fact, and that conviction did not constitute the
only authority for holding the prisoner, and for
evidence refer to the case itself, in the 2lst How
ards Supreme Court Reports.
thus appears-as every one knows who
hn,. looked at the report-that t,co cases were
decided together. In The irst case these are the
facts; Booth was brough. before q United
States Commissioner, charged with eiding and
abotting the escape Of aiugtiyc slave. On that
charge he was held to bail, released on q recog-
nizancc. subsequently surrendered by his surety,
ard thereupOn remanded to the custody Of the
Marshal on the Commissioners warrant. The
next day he was brought by habeas corpus be-
fore one of the Judges Of the Supreme Court of
Wisconsin. Tho return Of the Marshal TO the
writ recited the foregoing facts: Booths counsel
demurred TO tho return, and on argument il was
adudged insufficient, and Booth was released.
The Marshal carried the case by certiorari to
the full bench of the State Court, and the de-
cision was affirmed. Thence by writ of error
it went to the United States Supreme Court,
and was there argued in connection with
another case growing out Of subsequent transac-
tons.
The second case arose thus Booth, after his
release, as above stated on habeas corpus, was
indicted On tho same charge by the Grand Jury,
arrested, tried in the u. 5. District Court, and
convicted IIe was again brought before the
State Court by habeas corpus and again dis
charged, and this case also was carried before
the L. S. Supreme Court. The facts in both
cases arc stated in the opinion of Judge Taney,
both were argued AZ the same time, and one
opinion is given embracing both. The material
point Of difference between them il that, in tho
/ first the arrest was ON Comn,r1ioner's war
rant, tho Commissioner being not - Judicial
but ministerial officer: in tho second, the pr-
soner was in custody aftor conviction. Yet
Judge Leonard, with thls full statement OF
faots before him, ignores the first case, where
! the Commissioners warrant was tho only
ground of holding the prisoner, and ailirms that
Judge Tency's opinion Is based wholly on the
fact Of conviction, which is that case did not
exist. And this subtcriugu Is tho only means
by which ho can support his osA decision.
Mr. judge Leonard has either read the report
of ALieman n. Booth, or he has not. IL he
has not read it, he is guilty of fraud in judi
cially referring to it, and rreto ding to state It's
substance. Ii he has read K, he is guilty of n
fraud in misreprcsenting the decision itself, and
conccaling tho existence of ono Of the cases on
which il was based. Between tho horns Of this
dilemma hc is welcome to Iaakc his choice. II
no has anything TO say in his own de'orsc, our
columns arc open to him. If not, he stands
before the public convicted of an oilense that
ought 70 Danish him from the Bench.
s--m~.-sxsvs~na~~.sn.
THE WOMINs LOYAL NATIONAL LEAGUE