New-York daily tribune., 1863-08-31
JVDCE LEOSARD's DECISION.

Mr.. Justice Leonard, Of the Supreme Court
for this District. has given another judicial dec-
sion. which, whether 50 intended or not, can
have no other rcsult--if il has any al all-tEan
10 ombauass the Government. In the case Oi
a desertcr held by the Provost-Marshal under
the provisions of the Conscription Law, the
Judge has ordered the Marshal to produce the
body of the prisoner. He knows that his order
is ineiIectual; knows that Col. Nugent cannot
produce the dcserter except in direct disobedi-
euce of his orders; knows that the National
Goyornmen; has resolved that questions under
This act shall be heard and decided by a
United States Court, where they properly
bclons Knows that the Supreme Court
OF h, United States has judicially denied his
rgh; ~ Judge Of State Court TO interfere in
such a case; set he deliberately dciies the Coy
enucui, and insults the highest legal tribunal
of the country. whose decisions he has sworn to
respect lie issues mandate which he is wei!
NV are will not and cannot be oboyed, and dis
obedience 10 which will, of course, be made -
prctext for an outcry against military oppression.
4 SO months agu IL might have been made the
protest Tor Il conflict between The military forces
of the State and the Nation, but with thirty
thousand veterans cntamped in the city, the
maddest conspirators will hardly venture upon
an armed resistance 10 the viii OF the Govern
mcnt. The only remaining resource to the in-
surreotiOnary leaders is contest in court about
Jurisdictions and senselcsS clamor in disloyal.
journals over an unimportant dispute Judge
Leonard gives them the opportunity.
A 20 the opinion Of Judge Leonard, We have
only to say that its arguments have been re-
p Iiedy coniutcd in these columns, snd that
the decision Of Judge Bacon, the substance Of
which, with copious citations, is stated in an
other article, leaves nothing to be desired in
exposition OF their iallacy. A single passage,
however, deserves special comment for its
iagrant dishonesty. Judge Leonard says in re-
ference 10 ibieman c. Booth:
Thc language of Judge Taney be understood apply
the o- of the before the Court the time Booth
wa, ia custody oonreton for criminal c6ease Tho
Marshal there bad the process OF the Fedea Court er
rie'ior That constituted The authority Gc Tor holding the
prisoner rced to by Judge Taney The State Court had
then jurisdiction to su hibca corpus ior bis pro
duction, II those facts appeared"
The language OF Judge Taney applies 10 the
facts Of tro cases, both before the Court at the
same time, aud in the leading case Booth was
not :" III custody or CO lvicton;' there had been
no conviction, and of course the Marshal had no
process LATER conviction" In other words,
the decision in Abiemdn r. Booth would have
been exactly the same if there never had been
any conviction. Yet Judge Leonard rests his
whole argument against this decision on the
conviction, and deliberately supprcsses the fact
we thus state---a fact which must have been
known to him, as it is TO everybody who ever
read the case. Ii he Were arguing us counsel,
such an instance of the snppressio reri would
disgrace the most unsccupulous lawyer at the
bar; what shall be said of it coming from the
bench
Extreme charity might urge that this omiS-
sion was accidental, but It was not. Judge
Leonard expressly says:
The authority II the State Courts to require the p'0o"e
ton OF prisoner cea.,s when the commitment has been ade
bv f,e direction of Judge Of e United States Court cu'
not pthouf"
Yet Judge Taney decides " terms that II