The daily Evansville journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1862-1863, 1863-08-04
DOSES FOR CoPPERREADs.
The Habeas Corpus Dodge. Law for
COnSpiPatOPS.

COnSpiratOPs.
lFrom the New York Tribune, 9th ult1
CoNsTITUTIoNALITY OF THE CoNsCRIPT1oN
Casting about for means whereby to
Ee Es datb tbe da dG9sfRan ns ana nav Ra sfsf
seemed to have agreed, with considera-
bic unauimity, on a plan for arraying
the State against the National Govern
ment, by help of habeas corpus and the
State Courts. twas proposed that who
ever was drafted should sue out hdbeas
corpus from some court presided over by
a dlsloyal Judge, and that upon the hear
ing of the writ the Judge should pro-
nounce the CONSUMPTION Act uuconstitu-
tjonal, and therefore discharge the con-
script, who was to 60 on his way re-
joicing. The recent Instructions of
Provost Marshal Fry, in anticipation of
this purpose, direct his subordinates not
to produce the deserter or couscript be-
fore State Court, in obedience to writ
= of habeGS corpus, AID the conspirators
whose plot is thus frustrated have made
haste to denounee the instructions as an
outrage upon the judiciary and the lights
OF the States They propose that Mar
shal refusing obedience to the writ shall
be proceeded against by attachment for
contempt; that the Sheriff serving that
process shall appeal to the State militia
to enforce it, and finally that Gov. Sey-
mour shall put himself at the head of his
State troops in battle array against the
National forces. By the time this is ac-
complshed, it is expected that a mate
rial diversion in favor of the rebellion
will have been accomplished; or, in other
words, that Northern rebellion shall be
organized with military force. All this
is based upon the supposed respect of
the people for legal forms and constitu-
tional rights, and might be in this view
very good plot, but for one considera-
ton: The Supreme Court of the United
States has already decided the question
on which this issue is to be made, and
has decided it adversely to the authority
of the State Courts.
The case cf Ableman agt. Booth, 81
Howard's Supreme Court Reports, SOC,
sion nal and the coSntfy fth as fhaf ii wRfch
the effort of the Supreme Court of Wis
consin to protect citizen of that State
against Federal persecution, was finally
defeated Booth was arrested on Uni
ted States Commissioner warrant, for
aiding and abetting the escape of an
alleged fugitive who had been arrested
under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
He was discharged from the custody of
the United States Marshal by the Su-
preme Court of the State, on the ground
that the Fugitive Slave Act was uncon-
stitutional; exactly the ground on which
it is now proposed that conscript shall
be discharged, so that the two cases are
in all respects identical. Booth was
legally in the hands of the United States
Marshal, just as the conscript will be
legally in the custody of the Provost
Marshal. But the United States Court
decides not only that he should not have
been discharged, because the law was
constitutional but goes further and de-
clares it to be the duty of the Marshal not
to obey the precept of the State authori-
ty. he is to make known to the State
Judge that he holds the prisoner under
United States process, but he is not to
produce the prisoner in obedience 10 the
writ of hd6e0S corpus from the State
Court. This decision is the unanimous
opinion of the Supreme Courtof the Uni
ted States, and is pronounced by no less
a person than Mr. Chief Justice Taney
himself It is so full and emphatic, anG
80 completely disposes of the whole case
that we copy the material portion of the
opinion. Judge Taney says:
1--WE do not qestion the authority of a
State Court or Judge, who is authorized
by the laws of the State to issue th'
writ of habeas corpus, to issue it in an,
case where the party is imprisoned with
in its territorial limits, provided it doe
not appear when the application is made
: nnder authority of the United otaUes..
The Court or Judge has right to II
ouire, in this mode of proceeding, fo
: What cause and by what authority tb
nr;soner is confined within the ter
itorial limits or the State soverelgl
!. Nv. and it is the duty of the Ma
d shall, or other person having II
g custody of the prisoner, to mat
i' known to the Judge or Court, by pro
a- return the authority by which he hol
him in custody. This right to inquri
bv process of habeaS corpus, and the du
'e: of the officer to make return grt
ID necessarily out Of the complex charac'
of our government, anu IoO 0AS
two distinct and separate sovereignu
within the same territorial space, ca
of them restricted in its powers,
each within its sphere of acton, P
les scribed by the Constitution OF the Unl
on States, independent of the other. ~
lsss' after the return is made, and the 81
50 Judge or Court judicially apPrised t
the party is in custody under the auti
itv of the United States, they can
ceed no further They then know
the prisoner is within the dominion
CE jurisdiction of another government,
that neither the acrit Of hGbeds cor
nor any other process issued under
n.y State authority can pass oUer the
rop of division betUeen the t,co soUerea9n
es Of lie is then toithin the dominion dnt a
ates. cIusirs jurisdiction ofthe United 81
rect, rect If he has committed an ofense agf
their laws, their tribunals alone can
nptly ~ him IF he is Wrongfully lmprlSo