Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1863-08-06
sac and Nafionai f.odrts.

The rioters Of New York and their SYM
pathisers every where, from Governor sey-
mour down to the meanest Ohio Copper
head. have had fellow oOnspirstor in the
convenient person Of City Judge MoCunn.
This person has busted himself in issuing
writs Of hd5sas corpus in behalf Of any
persons arrested for participating with the
riot, and then letting them of ssOt-free-
1t was nice arrangement. The rioters
could appeal 70 the amsjesty Of the ju-
dietary" and with tempting plausibility,
demand that the legality Of the cOnscrip-
ton Law, or Of arrests under it, should be
tested. McCunn would issue writ,
bring the offender before him, declare his
arrest Illegal and release him to do other
riotous acts, and st the same time estab-
lish Democratic legal precedent. This
pleasant conspiracy has been broken up.
The Supreme Court has decided that the
ordinance creating the Office Of City Judge
conferred no right to issue writs Of hG-
6aes corpus, and that consequently all the
Writs issued by McCunn were null and
void.
Bat more important decision, and one
that determines this whole question Of
habeas corpus by State Court to be used
against national laws, as practiced by the
issue of Writs to obtain the discharge Of
conscripts, is one that was given in the
we'll known Wisconsin case Of Ableman
vs.. Booth, in which the latter was tried In
the United States Court for violating the
Fugitive Slave Law, and q writ Of habeaS
corpus issued for his release from cOnfne-
ment. The case was brought before the
Supreme Court Of the United States and
the decision pronounced by Chief Justice
Tsney, it being concurred in unanimously
by the Supreme Bench. 1t will be readily
remembered how this decision was well
coined and extolled by the Democratic
party, and those who are supporters of
such men IS Seymour and MoCunn. We
quote the following summary from Justice
Taney's decision, which could not have
been more applicable to the present time
if it had bsen especially given upon =
case under the Conscription Act Judge
Taney reasoned at great length, but these
few words tell the whole story
ait is the duty Of the Marshal or other
person holding the prisoner not to take
him, or suffer him to be taken, before a
State Judge or Court upon q hdbeas corpus
issued under State authority. No State
judge or Court, after they are judicially
informed that the party is imprisoned un-
der the authority Of the United States,
has any right to interfere with him, or re-
quire him to be brought before them. And
if the authority Of the State, in the form
of judicial process OF otherwise, attempt
to control the Marshal or other authorized
officer or agent Of the United States in any
respect, in the custody Of his prisoner, it
would be his duty to resist it, and to call
to his aid any force that might be necessa-
~ to maintain the authority of law
against legal interference No judicial
process, whatever form it may assume,
can have any lawful authority outside the
limits Of the jurisdiction Of the Court or
Judge BY which it is issued; and any at.
tempt 10 enforce Il beyond these boundaries is
nothing less than IavLess violence"
And yet it is precisely this same law
less violence that these deolaimers about
the inviOlsbility Of ka5eas corpus are eter-
nslly invoking.