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

| Judgment of the district Court; butbecaust
the authority fthe United States, by whom
soever exercised, IS Supreme. and not to be
inquired into by State Court under any
pretense, II is enough for State Court 10
know that United States officer has custo-
dy of the prisoner. They are thereupon
barred from further proceedings. 1t is a
question Of Jurisdiction. The State sover.
eighty Of Wisconsin is limited and control.
ed by that ofthe United States. and the
pow RS which the latter assume, whether
rightfnl or not, to exercise, are beyond the
sphere ofa State Court and in no manner
| to be investigated by ITS authority. We
quote the language Of Judge Taney
No State authorize on Of Its Judge. or Conrts
! to exercise judicial power by habeas corpus, or
| otherwise, within the Jurisdiction OF smother and
| Independent government. And al. hough the State
Of Wisconsin Is sovereign within its territorisi lin.
its to certain extent yet that sovereignty is limit
ed and restricted by the Constitution of the United
States. And the powers of the General Government
and ofthe State, although both exist and are exer
esed within the same territorial limits yet sep.
crate and distinct Sovereignes, acting separately
! and independently Of each other, within their re-
spective spheres And the sphere of action appro
pirate to the United States is far beyond the reach
ofthe judicial process isued by State Judge or
State Court, as ifMe line Of dirision ,cas traced
By land marks and monuments risi6le TO the eye
-r2l Howard 8. c. r.: :oI5-I6l
And again
THE Consultation Was not formed merely 20 guard
the State against danger from foreign nations but
mainly to secure Union and harmony at home for
II this object could be attained there could be bu.
little danger from abroad and to accomplish this
purpose, It was felt by the Statesmen WHO framed
the Constitution. and by the people who adopted II
that IL was necessary that many the rights
ereignty which the States then possessed should be
ceded to the General Government; and that In the
sphere o, action osstgned to IT, e should be su-
prense, and strong enough to EXECUTE its own laws
6y its oacn tribunals, toithout Interruption from,
State or from State authorits,s I'D, p. SIT
That disposes of the whole question:
Cases subsequently arising, rs for instance
under the Conscription act, must be decided
on the same principle. The prisoner IL in
custody under authority Of the United
States. and that authority, whether judicial
or ministerial. civil or military, is supre ne
is not to be called in question in State
Court; is to be jndicially inquired into by
United States tribunal. Itwas logically in
pursuance of this train ofreasonng, and az
the inevitable result of the discussion of the
case. upon the facts Of the case, that Judge
Taney finally declared, in the language we
have twice before quoted, and which we
quote once more:
'Bus after the return is made, and the State Judge
or Court Is judTciay apprised that the party Is In
custody UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF rHK UNITED srArr.
they can proceed no further. They then know that
the prisoner is within the dominion and juris
Of another Government, and that neither the writ oil
habsas corpus or any other process issued under
State authority. can pass the line OF division
between two sov,reignties. Hs Is rHss wrrHE THE
DOMINION AND Exclusive Jursprcrros OF THE UNITED
STATES. II he has committed offence against their
laws, their tribunals alone punish him. II he is
vrongfuily imprisoned their judicial tribunals can
release him and afford him redress And al
though have said, 1t is the duty Of the Mar.
shall, or other person holding him, to make known
by proper return the authority under witch he de-
tains him, 1t Is impers.vely his duty to obey the
process Of the q. g. to hold the prisoner In custody
under It, and to REFUSE oBspEscs TO PIE NaSpArE
or process Of any otheri Government. And conse
queniy 1t is his duty not to take the prisoner, nor
suffer him to be takkn, before State Judge or
Court upon hsbeas corpus issued uuder State au-
thority No State Judge or Court, after they
judicialiy Informed that the party is imprisoned
under the authority ofths United States, has any
right to interfere with him, or to require him to be
brought before them.
So much for the law But mark how un-
warily these disloyal papers have disclosed
their real object. Why should they Ne ca
ger to deny and diseredit decision Of the
Supreme Court which covers all these oues-
tons under the CONSUMPTION Law, and pre-
vents all possibility ofconfiict between State
and National authorities /? Solely because
they meant and mean that there shall be
conflict, and their rage is vented against
this decision because it destroys beforehand !
the pretence for that co: fict. They meant
to array the State against the Union to
provoke collision on habeas corpus from
State Court to enforce it's service against
q Provost Marshal by the military power of
the State, knowing that he would be protec-
ted by the National forces. This decision
Of the Supreme Court blocks The wheels of
that plot. 1t announces in advance that
there is no legal pretext for the habeas cor
pus, and thus destroys the chance of dulu-
ding the citizens Of the State into the belief
that their legal, constitutional right are iw-
peri!ed Hence the effort to misrepresent
to put aside, to conceal, the meaning and
force of the decision. The effort is useless.
The law stands. The decision incontrover-
tibly declares it. Tha Government will en-
force il. Let traitors beware how they stand
in the way.
Don't Unchatn the Tiger.