New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-08-25
gsAEEAs CORPUs-DECESsON OF q
STATE COURT.

will reiojce TO learn that a case involving the
principles ofpcrsonal liberty supposed to be at is
sue under the CONSUMPTION Law has been raised
and decided in the Supreme Court of the Sew
enth Judicial District, at Rochester. Three
petitions for writs Of habeas corpus were pre-.
case. the facts being in substance the same, the
petition was granted and the writ issued, upon the
allegation that the persons whose imprisonment
was complained of were minors under the age of
eighteen years, and were unawfully restrained of
their liberty by military officers on pretense
that they were duly enlisted as soldiers into the
service of the United States. The officers de-
olined to obey the writs by producing the per-
sons named therein, and in an amended return
set forth the facts by virtue of which they
claimed to be excused from Obedience to the
writ. The original return, ii may be remarked
which was made in a form moi materially differ
ent from that which Provost Mar.hals have
been directed to employ. was adJudged insult
fci in these cases on the ground thal aSsun-
in ne facts in the petitions 20 be truo-a'Sun-
;uy that is the enlisted soldiers 10 be minors
under eghteen-ihc return showed no apparent
righl to hold them as enlisted soldiers oi the
Halted State. The declaration of the recruits
their enlistment papers, the surgeons eerlHh'
cate and that of the recruiting officer were
accordingly annexed to the original return.
The Court, on these papers, was of opinion tha'
the imprisonment va prima !ad' lawful Inc
petitioner. in one case. who va, the father ol
: The prisoner, then claimed 10 show that the
enlistment was not valid. because his son Wa,
in fact under eighteen at the time OF enlistment
Tie question, therefore. arose whether the
Court had jurisdiction of the ease beyond the
return: in other words, since II appeared that
the prisoner was held "undcr the authority ol
the United states could a State Court inquire
further into the legality or validity OF the
authority by which be wa. held. And The
Cont decided tina, il could not: that the case
waa covered by the decision IN Ab'maHs. Booth,
and that it, jurisdiction wa at an 'nd A
soon as IL appeared that the prisoner
was in the custody OF United States officer.
We have 80 recently stated and considered at
length this famous case that II d unnecessary
again 10 review It IN connection with Judge
Smiths decision. Suffice II to- hat be- con-
slider, the principles cuurcatcd ~ Ahcmen r.
Booth. although arising upon widely different
state Of facts, 70 be applicable 10 the present
cases OF hAbcas corpus by State Court where
the prisoner is in military custody q ihe United
States. Recognizing IT, binding force aud au-
,hori,y a. a decision by The supreme Court o
the United sta,es. he records al-o lIs own opin-
ion-thc opinion If The Judge of State Court,
restricting his own Jurisdiction
IT,, Go d..ir.re asserted n ts o'.e " Altman -
b.. - r,..n.ia O. to nfriarro af iAr tait saila
tv ,-,t.il, ~ tine o. var so oos.rnefi taaA aa.n
,n ,nd e1sfr,c e, power, 20 ihr flH ,isar uhrt 80 sei
Good. be- CONTROLLED ly o., li-y e aao.li se'oselty. Of
b, IoI-y ,s 10, . pii~u ana suihoniy g. anoiAei
Da,,raei ff evtiy tl; o. 10 Otsf. oos'sHilfni n q
in ir lssa bcft, ~ tha oiru eco BE- ossiian'd nioa
a corpus By fi, judges ol &C. sis Court. nra ulh''
i..rfis,a,, 80 sal Dig void be- d. ilrtlle 'srh
Suil more ponicily aud iurchly be- urges;
The fforai ooali,,a ~ tAs rrunify .alai'' nia.h
anon, isn u tines O.. rcsrs ilc IMPOTENCE al n'.'.., %
s aociaD, 90 enable Gee o.. fuuer rolefy g. Feioin
b.. hisa inrtons ln naay o aAi ' M ole eouniiY 4'l' f
he state. which have rsssedy fcnunred 'te n'era a.
horfy g. notorious a' there come wi dfgosri r~f
.,n, H. sympa,sy ih ihe 81 no counify ~la Afe
pos,d 10 ihc AID Who e,arr lif q hps'y 60 DO
O.srrrurrt by hairfinr easf'uft ail sonaiceus~ sy
rins enlisted 10 dsiefi-hy seefeinf aes'rei' sna
e. ifs hy faor iher tri snd reanl ~ 30 AMY end JOB
opposition - t4e draft spd ,a9.s oihsf a.''s ds.'ihs
a, opr..1r 81 iAe Dose.naef Dol ,.n1a,tnF te var II
would lc safp,ns By ssrh ea.d nai hli 'aro CONVEX
, I.i.- who would i,..c af, Of h.,a. cofl.s aid ~
. process dharsv si r-r.ns brought before it on t~
sf. I'D tai ihs lass of Con f,.s a. 4af c iia fi ng
tie df. god o a,.i a. sd peihss tle $751; itss
wefe unconstitutional and us s,e color % ie 60 trf di'
loyal OTTO ail qf9o.eli4f.'
The pa, teal consequence of Interference by
State Courts, aud OF prplracted Judicial proceed
iugs IN reference 20 iac mastering OF national
forces, are thus clearly stated.
"Iho proceeding, uan Aabe4 oo.gus sf' sannay iron
r decision OF ho Jaas- .a'riins t,.a Proceeding, 81 ii
be- ,ha, the prisoner uulely -sifanad u hs liberty Il
would be- ordered ll IA. be- dl.ehaied iom such imPf'on
aenL By t. pfoccs. tho sy might be- deIsied by descr
tan and the dc.cfts a,hafrcd by habcas corpus Proceed
ns. 20 reverse srh son would Do quite Idle and usecss
f al paca purposes oi m tho ordinary Of Judicial
proceedings se,cfa years would erse before the could
roach The supreme Count Of the United States io c'es. and
eyersa Of the decision Of rhc Judge by The
Supreme Court, ofihe state could uo be had PIE
vent The miscArt'
Judge Smith quotes also a recent decision By
the Supreme Court OF Michigan in the ease of
Jacob Spangler american Law Register for
August, p. 59s), "in which writ OF habcas
corpus issued to Draft Commissioner in that
State was dismissed upon the same views herein
expressed, and in which the case Of Abicman n.
Booh is cited with APPRECIATION" And he
finally declares, in spirit Of patriotism which
I a.. ontuu,nnI ia IA. bnuch nj fln Sfat. ~