New-York daily tribune., 1863-08-01
THE LAW-TIIK CONsPIRATORs.

AUeman .. Booth, wherein the Supreme
Court of the United States unanimously de.
eide that a person in custody under the au'
thority OF the United States cannot be brought
by babeas corpus before State Court, but
that il 10 the duty Of the Marshal or other
person holding him TO retain bis prisoner, and
to refuse obedience to the mandate OF any
other than a United States Court. The publ
cation OF this decision has spread confusion
and Disney among the disoyal factions who
have atterly been conspiring to embroh the
State with tho Natonai Government. The law
and ito application to cases arising under the
Conscriptlon act eere 80 perfectly clear, that
for several days the Copporhead presses OF
New.Yoyk, which for weeks previously had
been shouting habens corpus and prematurey
e1ulting in the prospect Of collision arising
out of the attempt to protect that
writ, we're hushed into despondent ST.
lence. Finally, one Of tho three or
four organs Of Jefferson Davis ventured to
print nn Anonymous communication, labor.
ously endeayorng 10 explain away the decision
of the Supreme Court and to represent 1t as
inapplicabs to cases under the Conscriptiou
Law. The other Copperhead papers followed
with more or less ingenious efforts IN the same
direction, aud one OF them Goally takes cour.
age to assert positively that State Court has
the risht 10 interfere in a case wbero the
Supreme Court Of tho United States denies to
1t the power.
One ard only one plausible argument ba,
been adduced against tho decision OF the
Court. 1t is urged, in the first place, that
the expression, OF the Judge must be taken
wiih reference 10 the caro- before him-which
every nwyer knows 10 DO true, and which We
readily admit. 1t 10 then affirmed that in the
case Of iBienaa Q. Booth the decision Of the
Court "Las reference exclusively to an at.
tempt on the part Of State Court to review
on habcas corpus the Judicial determination OF
Federal judicial officer" In other words,
| It 10 meant to say that Booth was arrested on
the warrant Of a United States Commissioner.
and that the Supreme Court decided that i!
was & competent for a State Court by writ of
habcas corpus to supervise aud enuul the pro-
ceedirss OF the Commissioner. il 1t be true
that tho decision Of the Court was with refor.
encs to that state Of facts, and ba'ed upon
that ground. then We concede that it would
not cover casss under the Conscription act,
and that tho language Of ChefJustice Taney,
which does cover those cases, was merely the
! of tIa laxx nd xxa
ob,isr dieium. But it is not true. The de-
ci.ion of the Court was not 80 limited, and
wn, not based upon the ground alleged.
To the objection as above stated there are
two answers. either OF which is conclusive.
| T,ra A Commissioner 10 not Judicial but
n ministerial officer. Tho fact that he is
charged with certain quasi Judicial duties does
not confer on him the judicial character. lie
is tho sppointee of tho court, as the clerk or
cror il. The courts are established under tho
Constitution by laws Of Congress. and the
Judges are appointed by the President. the
constitutional appointing power. The right ~
appoint otLer judges cannot be delegated to
tbsm. Since, therefore, the commissioner On
whose warrant Booth was arrested was not u
judicial officer, tho decision Of the Supreme
Court could not have proceeded on the alleged
ground Of q want Of power in the State court
to supervise tho proceedings of Federal
judicial officer. In tho case Of the United
States .. Booth, argued and decided with
AJieman .. Booth there wus no Judicial
decision of the District Court, but tho reason
ing and language Of Judge Tsney apply equally
to both cases, and may therefore be considered
a. if they had reference only to tho latter case.
Secondly: 1t is iwmaterial whether tho COM
mi ssoner be regarded as u judicial or minis
terlal officer. Judge Taneys opinion proceeds
upon tho ground that Booth was held under
the authority Of tue United Statss; and 1t
makes no sort of difference What authority.
Admit that his decision is TO be construed with
reference to tho facts Of tho ease; it is also to
bs construed, and can only bo ntegently un-
derstood n applied, by reference to tho rea-
soniog upon which it rests. and through which
/, it is arrived ut. Now it 10 plain. and Is re-
peatedly declared by the Judge, that he denies
to the State Court tho right to release Booth
on habcns corpus, or to have him brought
before them, not because no is held un.
der judicial process. whether warrant
of tho Commissioner or Judgment 0i
tho District Court; but because
the authority of the United States, by whom
soeyer exercised, is supreme, and not to be
inquired into by State Court on any pre-
tense. 1t s enough for the State Court to
know that o United States officer has custody
of tho prisoner. They arc thereupOn barred
| r.or, G,,thar proceedinga II ia a ouestiOn OF