The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1863-08-13

| by three observations. The cata-
logue now numbers $4,000, and i
nearly ready for publication.
!
From the Nsw York Tribune.
The LAw-Tlle Cons plratOfs
Wecited last week the well-known case
Of Alderman v. Boot, wherein the Suprem
Court Of the United States unanimously de
eide that a person in custody under the au
thority Of the United States cannot bt
brought By habeas corpus before n Stat.
Court, but that it is the duty Of the Marsha
or other person holding him to retain hi,
prisoner, and to refuse obedience to the
mandate of any other than the United
States Court The publication of this de.
cision has spread confusion and dismay
among the disloyal factions who have latter
ly been conspiring to embrol the State with
the National Government. The law and its
application to cases arising under the Con.
scription act we're SO perfectly clear. thai
for several days the Copperhead presses ol
New York, which for weeks previously had
been shouting habeas corpus add prema.
turely exulting in the prospect of collision
arising out of the attempt to, protect that
writ, were hushed into despondent silence.
Finally, me ofthe three or four organs of
Jefferson Davis ventured to print an anony-
nous commnn cation. laboriously endeavor-
ing to explain. away the decision of the Su.
premc Court and to represent it as inappli-
cable to cases under the Conscription Law.
The other ,'opperhead papers followed with
more or less ingenious efforts in the same
direction, and one Of them finally takes
courage to assert positively that State
Court has the right to interfere in a case
where the Supreme Court Of the United
States denies to it the power.
One and only one plausible argument has
been aduced against the decision Of the
Court. II is urged, in the first place, that
the expressions Of the Judge must be taken
with reference to the case before him
which every lawyer knows to be true. and
which we readily admit. It is then affirm
ed that in the case of fAbleman v. Booth the
decision of the Court "has reference exclu-
sively to an attempt on the part ofa State
Court to review on habeas corpus the judi
icial determination of Federal judicial off,
cer.' In other words, it is meant to say
that Booth was arrested on the warrant of
United States Commissioner, and that the
Supreme Court decided that il was not COM
retent for State Court by writ Of habeas
corpus to supervise and annul the proceed.
ings Of the Commissioner If it be true
that the decision of the Court was with re.
ference to that state of facts, and based upon
that ground, then W concede that it would
not cover cases under the Conscription act,
and that the language Of Chief Justice Tan
ey, which does cover those cases, was mere.
ly the expression of his views of the law,
and was obitsr dictum. But it is not true.
The decision ofthe Court was not so limi-
ted, and was not based upon the ground al.
legged.
To the objection as above stated there are
two answers, either Of which is conclusive.
First: A Commissioner is not a judicial
but ministerial officer. The fact that he is
charged with certain quasi judicial duties
does not confer on him the judicial chara.-
ter. He is the appcintee Of the court, as
the clerk or crier is. The courts are estab.
lished under the Constitution by laws of
Congress, and the judges are appointed by
the President, the constitutional appt hitting
power. The right to appoint other judges
cannot be delegated to them. Since, there
fore, the commissioner on whose warrant
Booth was arrested was not a judicia. off,
Ger, the decision of the Supreme Court
could not have proceeded on the alleged
ground Of a want Of rower in the State
court to supervise the proceedings ofa Fed
eral judicial officer. In tho case of the
United States .. Booth, argued and decided
with Ableman o Booth, there was no judi.
cisl decision Of the District Court, but the
reasoning and language Of Judge Taney ap
ply equally to both cases, and may there
fore be considered as If they had reference
only to the latter case.
Secondly: II is immaterisl whether the
commissioner be regarded as judicial or .
ministerial officer Judge Taney's opinion
proceeds upon the ground that Booth was
held under authority Of The Unite.l States !;
and it makes no difference whas au, hority
Admit that this decision is to be construed,
with reference to the facts Of the c,se it
is also to be construed, and can only be in
tellglbly understood and applied, by refer
ence to the reasoning upon which 1t rests.
and through which it is arrived at. Now
it is plain. and is repeatedly declared by the
Judge, that he denies to the State Court the
right to release Booth on habsas corps. or
to have him brought before them. oot be-.
cause hs is held under judicial process,
whether warrant OF the Ccmmissioner or