Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1863-07-14

would hardly nave parted with, except upon the
most urgent necessity. As soon, then, as citizen
of the State was supposed to be illegally restrained
of his liberty by an officer of the general govern
ment, under color Of a law of Congress- we might
have expected that the State Courts would promptly
and anxously inquire whether they had been de-
privcd Of their jurisdiction over the matter. They
would ask had it been taken away by an exclu-
sive authority, granted IN express terms to the
Courts of the Union? =
If for instance, it were the case of soldier un-
lawfully enlisted in the army, the answer would be
in the negative. They would then ask was it case
where a particular authority was granted to the
Courts of the Union, and the exercise of like au
thority prohibited to the Courts of the States p
The answer would still be in the negative. They
would then ask: Was it a case where an authority
was granted to the Courts of the Union with which
similar authority in the Courts of the States would
be utterly incompatible? That was considered to
be debateable question, and it was debated with
great zeal and ability in almost every State of the
Union for many years. The result was i'll favor of
the jurisdiction Of the State Courts and was thus
announced by Chancellor Kent in the 1st Ed of his
commentaries and was so published in each success
sive edition of his work until his death. (See
Kent's Com. 400-40I)
|. "In the case of Ferguson 60 Johns Rep 1882 an
application was made to the Supreme Court of New
York, for an allowance of O habeGs corpus to bring
up the party alleged to be detained in custody by
officer of the army of the United States, on the
ground of being enlisted soldier; and the allega
ton was that he was an infant and not duly enlist
ed. 1t was much discussed, whether the State
Courts had concurrent jurisdiction by habeGS corpus
over the question of unlawful Imprisonment, when
that Imprisonment was by an officer of the United
States by color under preteXt of authority of the
United States. TheSupreme Court did not decide the
question, and the motion was denied ON other
grounds, but subsequently in the matter of Stacy,
90 Johns. $685. the same Court exercised jurisdc-
ton in similar case, by allowing and enforcing
obedience to the writ of habeGs corpus. The
question therefore settled in favor of a con-
current jurisdiction in that caSe and there has been
a similar decision and practice by the Courts of
other States" See also Hurd on ha6eas corpus,
book 2 chap. l. sec. 8, where many cases stated,
which show the correctness of Chancellor Kents
assertion
To the cases mentioned by Hurd may be added
that of Mason decided in this State, and reported
l Murph. 1885, The question of the compatibility
OF the jurisdiction of the State Courts with that of
the Courts of the United States seems thus to have
been proved conclusively by long experience of their
harmonious action and the general acquieScence of
the country in it.
But it has beer, recently said that this is all
mistake, and that the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States in the case of A6lemGH US.
Booth 81 Haw. SOC, is directly opposed to the sup
position of concurrent jurisdiction in the Courts
of the State with those of the Federal government.
With the decision in that case l entirely concur;
and think that it is clearly shown in the opinion
of the Chief Justice of this Court filed in this case
that the remarks of fancy G. j., in giving the opn-
ion of the Supreme Court of the United States,
not fairly be construed to sustain the doctrine
tended for by the supporters of the exclusive urS
dction of the Federal Courts.
Another case recently decided by the Supreme
Court of Alabama has also been invoked to the aid
of those who oppose the concurrent jurisdiction Of
the State Courts. The case is that of Er pGrte HILL
decided at the last January term of the Court, and
reported and published in pamphlet form by Mr..
Shepherd, the reporter of the Court. An attentive
examination of the case will show, that though the
decision of the Court is right it cannot be used as
an authority for tho purpose for which it has been
cited. will premise that the Court is composed
OF three Judges Of whom only the Chief Justice,
A. j. Walker aud Stone, Judge, were present, the
other Judge, r. W. Walker, being detained at home
by provdentia causes. The Court agreed in the
conclusion that the Judge whose action they were
reviewing, should not issue the writ Of hdbeGs cor
puS upon the petition before him. The Chief JUS
lice put his opinion upon the ground of want of
jurisdiction in the Courts Of the State, but Judge
Stone expressly said 81 withhold the expression OF
any opinion all those cases, in which the party,
either by name or as one ora class Sect stands.
absolutely and Internationally, exempt from con-
scripLlon, wthoutany othor qualification than that he
is of the given class such for example, as persons
under the age of eighteen years over forty five,
officers judicial and executive of the Confederate
and State governments, &C." The Judge then went
with his argument to show that the petitioner in
the case before the Court was not exempt from
scription under the law of Congress. In doing So
it seems to me he himself as member of the Court
was assuming jurisdiction of the case. If he had
the rightFto construe the act of Congress for the
purpose of ascertaining that the party not en-
titled to exemption he had the same right to con-
Strue the act If his construction led to the conclu
sion that the party was exempt A power to con-
strue the act at all involves necessarily urisdic-
ton in the Court If this be So then the Court
was equally divided upon the question of jurisdic-
ton, and therefore, there decision either way
upon that question.
Another case reported in the same pamphlet and
suppose, decided at the same term, shows mani
testify that the Court assumed and exercised juris-
dction over the cause. The case is that of Er
1pGrte Stringer. The party being in custody as a
conScript, applied for writ Of hGbeaS corpus upon
the ground that he was regular member of the
"Christian Church." and had conscientious scru-
pies against bearing arms. Stone, Judge delivered
the opinion of the Court, in which it was decided
that the acts of Congress known as the "Conscrip-
ton laws" were constitutional and that the petit
toner did not come within any of the exemption
clauses of those laws. The opinion closes thus -
As the opinion of the entire Court is not vet an
nounced, nor indeed formed, on the broad question
of the jurisdiction of the State Courts in cases like
tho present and as feel no hesitation in refusing
the present application on the merits, place our
refusal on the ground stated above The prayer of
the petitioner is denied"
If the Court had no jurisdiction of the cause, 1
should like to know how it acquired the power to
decide the upon its merits? From this exam
nation it is manifest think, that neither the Ala
bama case, nor that of AbLenGn Us. Booth has les
sened in any sensible degree the weight of author
ity in favor of the jurisdiction of the
State Courts in cases like that now under consid
Grafton.
In closing this opinion will take occasion to re-
turn my TIL inks to the counsel on both sides for
the aid which they have given to the Court by their
able and well considered arguments.
WILL: Fl. BATTLE
COTTON YARN!-BY THE BUNCH OR
~ bale At WHITAKER'S
RoIoi Iulv