New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-08-07
THE BOOTH CASE.

We rcjou briefly aud finally to the second
e fort of Copperhead cotemporary to nullify
the decision Of the United States Supreme
Cont 10 ALBANIAN c. Booth. The greater part
! of the two columns devoted IL that attempt is
consumed In restatement Of the argument
which we have already conclu'vely answered.
But take this specimen of On endeayor to per.
vert and wrench from its fair meaning the
rendy consent We gave to try the question on
its merits. and to judge the opinion Of the
Court by the facts;
Whether tie decision Of the Court with reeierce to
the fec, that Booth arrested 90 the wah, OF United
States Conmiriouer. " G' mode 20 d9sai 'osy ulsH the
sruicncc Of thai Ggcf in ns eaH But Tan TRIBUNE hss not
den ed tha, Booth the custody Of the Marha under
wnrsn, Issued by United State, commsoaer, when els,
charged haben corp. BY ss9 Jadse, por VIII It maze
such denial. Hsres J0oisi az hfircFiias con- ounce ~
THA TkBuSEs il" GGni'sion that the decision 81 the
Court was with reference the fac, that Booth was arrested
en- s Va,rsnt OF Ugsd State. Commissioner and there
fore application whatever to ease Ia which
tha. feature, viz; a,ea proeeD does DO, enter
We admitted that if the decision Of the
Court was with reference to the fact of
Booths arrest on the warrant Of United
States Commissioner, and uds based on that
ground-that IT, upon the fact OF his arrest on
a rarram merely-it world not cover cases
under the Conscriptlon Act, where the arrest
was not on such warrant. Mark how this
fair admission lie, in the first place. distorted
into q very different admission, which we did
not make. and then how it is reasoned upon.
Tho argument is this: that in order to dis
cover whether the decision Of the Court was
with reference to o certain fact, 1t is only nee
essary to fluid that fact III the case, aud that,
being in the case, the decision of tie Court
must be in reference to it, and based upon it.
We'll, we find in the Gaze this other fact, that
Booth was q citizen Of Milwaukee. "iience
it follows" according to the logic OF this in-
genlous reasoner, EOS the inevitable conse-
quence Of this admission" that Z" the de-
csion of the Court was with reference to the
fact that Booth was o citizen Of Milwaukee,;
" and therefore it (the decision) can have no
application whatever to case In which that
feature, viz" citizenship of Milwaukee, " does
not enter" II this is maniiestly absurd, it is
not QUO WIN uOto upsutu th"u tuc ui buIiSHt
to which it Ia parallel. Again:
Tnn rniBUSEs argument IL that tie decision denied TO
the State Cou, right to Inquire habea. corpus ute
the legality OF Booths IMPROVEMENTS because hs wa
held under Judicial process whether warrant Of the Commits
soner Judgment OF tho Dcl Courts but tie groand
tina. the General Government. being sithD The
,phers of action assigned to it. powers which I. might
assume to exercise whether vghDuiv NOT beyond
tho control OF State Court In other words that the State
Court had no right examine whether the General Govern
he'd gone be,oad the sphere Of action aPpopa,sd TO H.
bsag,e 4, was supreme ,citin that sphere Of action.
The absurdy Of tina construction 10 TOO apparent to 70
qnire comment"
The "absurlity" Is no. In "THE TRIBUNE's
argument but 10 the above dishonest state
ment of it. Why not have quoted what we
did sayi Horc are the words;
"Now 1t is plain, and is repeatedly declared
by the Judge, that he denies to the State Cour'
tho right 10 release Booth on habeas corpus
or to have him brought before them, not De-
cause ho is held under judicial process, whether
warrant of the Commissioner or Judgment Oh
the District Court; but because tho authority
of tho United States BY wHoMsoEvER EXEI'
cIsED. is supreme, and not to DO inquired into
by q State Court ON any pretense."
But further, Judge Tapey does explicitly