The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1863-07-22

shall, without legal authority OF in viola
ton OF her own statutes, injure, imprison
or Cypress the citizenf Surely not" In
Slocum us. Mayherry, cd Wheaton, page
l, QSi7,) Slorum was surveyor for the
port of Newport in Rhode Island, and I'M
der the directions Of the collector had
seized the "venus," lying in that port
with cargo cstensibly bound to some other
port in the United States. Mayberry, who
was the owner of the cargo, brought an &C
ton of repleyiR in the State Court for the
restoration of the cargo. Slocum put his
defence on the ground that he was an off
Ger of the United States, and the seizure
OF the vessel and cargo was authorized by
an act of Congress. and denied the juris-
dictien of the. State Court. The Court
took jurisdiction and decided in favor of
Mayberry, on the ground tina. the act of
Congress, by its proper construction, only
authorized the seizure and detention of the
vessel and did not embrace the cargo, con-
sequently the officer had detained the cargo
against law. Slocum carried the case to
the Supreme Court of the United States,
where twas held that the State Court had
jurisdiction and had put proper construc-
lion on the act Of Congress. Marshall,
Chi, says: " Had tins action been brought
for the vessel instead of the cargo, the case
would have been essentially different, the
detention would have been by virtue of an
act Of Congress, and the jurisdiction of
State Court could not have been sustained;
bit the action being brought for the cargo.
to GetGin ,chich The la,c gaze no authority,
il was triable in the State Court" cite
this case particularly, because in theaction
Of repleyin the thing is taken out Of the
possession of the cficer, as the person IS
taken out of the possession of the officer,
under the writ of ha5tas corpus so il is
directly in point to show that State Court
las Jurisdiction, wherever the law gives no
authority TO detain the person or the thing,
and in order to decide that question, the
State Court has power TO put consauc-
tion on the act Of Congress under which
the ofieeriustifes the Imprisonment or de,
tention.
To oppose this array Of authorities and
reason, Mr.. Strong relies on two cases !:
Ableman Us. Booth, 81 Howard SOC. aud
Hills case" recently decided BY the Su,
preme Court OF the State Of Aabama.
With the decision in Abeman Is. Booth,
81 Howard 500. We entirely concur, and
agree with fancy, CD. Justice, that il is
a new and unprecedented attempt made 70,
the first time BY State Court, 10 assume
not merely an exclusive Jurisdiction, but
jurisdiction controlling the District
Court ofihe United States. This decision
Of the Supreme Court Of the United States
IN no wise lnpugns the concurrent jaris-
dietion Of The Stare Courts, which has been
settled by the authorities andreasOning TO
which we have referred. Two cases we're
presented. Booth was arrested under a
warrant Of the Cunmi ssioner appointed in
pursuance 20 an act Of Congress in respect
70 fugitive slaves, underia CHAR &c Of having
aided in the rescue Of fugitive slave and
upon examination before the Comm ssioner.
probable cause being shown, he was com.
mitted TO answer charge OF the United
States for misdemeanor before the DIS
trict Court in the State Of Wisconsin he
gave bail for his appearance, but was after.
wards surrendered by bis bail and Impri.
soned by the marshal, whereupon lie o5.
taired writ Of kGJsas corpus from judge
OF the State and was discharged. Alter
being discharged, the grand jury found a
bill Oi indictment against him IN the bis.
trict Court, upon which he was tired and
convicted and sentenced to pay fine and
be imprisoned. While in prison under
this sentence, lie obtained writ Of haJeal
corpus from The Supreme Court Or the state
and was discharged; whereupon the su-
pretne Court Of the United states had tie
matter brought before j. on wri, OF error,
and decided that as Booth in the FIRST case
was legally IN custody Of the marshal on 4
warrant OF commitment to auswera charge
for an indictable offence before the Distric,
Court, and in the second case was in Jail
under the sentence Of the District Court.
the State had no Jurisdiction BY Lqjtas cor.
pus to take him out Of the custody Of the
marshal, or out Of the Jail and discharge
him. This was the decision in the case.
and IL the lancuage used by the Chief Jus.