Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1864-06-05

/ States respectively or the people thereof" The
counsel for the eonscript officers in this case,
! argues that because the Constitution of the
Confedsrate States gives Jurisdiction to the Con-
fsderate courts controversies to which ths
ConledeEate States shall be party ergo. the
Contederate courts have exclusive jurisdiction.
/ But certainly the States nsver delegated TO the
/ general Government exclusive Jurisdiction
over the liberty of their respective citizens,
even in cases whers ths ConfedsEate States
IS IN this case might be tho restraining power
For if that be tyus, thsn the following PROPOSE
tion is also trne-to-Wit; that to this extent the
States have surrendered up all their sovereignty
and are powerlsss to protect their citizens from
| imprisonment, however DjHst-provided il only
be At The instance of the C0nfedeIacy. Our State
co1Siitution when It declares "that the writ Of
/ habeEs corpus shall not be suspended unless Ia
case of rebellion or invasion the public safety
may require it, either does or does not mean
what it says. II il means what it says, then
there are but two occasions upon which ths writ
may DO suspended, t0-wit when there is rebel
lion In the Stats, or when there Is invasion Of the
State But II it doss not mean what Il says
thsn t may mean anything; and il may be easy
70 imsgine another exceptional case IN which the
writ is TO be suspended, to-wits when the re-
ssFsinf is by Confederate authority. Oa this
point It is sufficient to remark, that Georgia Is
sovereign recognising no superior power in the
CoBfedsraey. Her constitution Is but the Ak
preston Of her sovereign viii. And in this au-
thoritativo expression there are stated to be bat
tao exceptional cases in which the great civil
writ Of liberty is to DO suspended; and the csse
OF restraint BY Confederate authority is not one
Of them. But it Is said we ara engaged IN war,
and that thia restraint of the Citizen Is In fur
therance Of military operations, under and By
virtue of orders Of the Confederate Government,
which Il the Wsr making power. A sufficient
reply to this position is to Be found ia the fact
that the relative rights and powers of the States
and the ConfsdsrAts Government are not
changed by the circumstances of war. The
States are as sovereign in war IS 10 peace, and
the CODtederate Government Is but their agent
under both conditions. To hold OF lsrWise would
be to hold tia. by mere fact of war which the
States had authorized thsir agent to engage in
this agent had been suddenly meiamOrphosed
into an original ovsrshsdowing p0Ter-gad the
States miserable dependencies, Crouehing at the
teet Of military despoHsm. The cases Of Able
man vs.. Booth and the United States vs. Booth.
IN Dist HowsId's Rep'ts, sTe mainly relied upon
in support of the doctrine of the plea. can
bat think that counsel has nliszppTehendsd the
force and effect Of the decision pronounced in
those two cases, which were decided together In
consequence Of their resulting from the sans
transaction This casa (for It vas tried IS
though it was but one ease) grew out of
violation of the Fugitive Slave Law,
of September 18Th, 1850. Booth had
been arrested By virtue Of warrant issued by
commissioner of the district court of the United
States, for that district, and duly committed.
Here the judicial power Of the Uniied States hsd
been exercised, and jurisdiction bad Tins been
given to the United States court. Chief Justice
Taney simply held in The case made before him,
(not denying the concurrent jurisdiction Of the
States snd United States courts in such cases.
that one judicial sovereignty having acquired
Jurisdiction, that jurisdiction pro hoe 0es become
exclusive. Il must be borne Ia mind, that in the
case before me, the applicant for the wit Il in
the custody of mere ministerial officers, and By
no judicial warrant whstsver. And until the is
suance of the writ by my predecessor, no Judicial
tribunal, either State or ConiedeTats, had Rc-
qured actusl jurisdiction. The State court,
however, having thus taken Judicial cognizanco
Of the case, no power on esrth can Gust its J1Fis-
aictiOn. The case relied on, relates to one who
had been made prisoner by tho Judicial author
ity of the United States. The case before me
relates to person who is restrained of his lib
erty, it is true, but not by judicial authority Il
is true the United States court in the case cited
insists on the appellate power of the Supreme
court of the United States over the courts, in
all cases arising under the Constitution and
laws Of the United Statss; but as this question
does not come legitimately before me now, I
pass ii by, simply rsmsrking, that in the judg
nent Of this court, the sections of The national
judiciary act, upon which this claim is based,
and which doubtless led to the assumption of
that dsctTiHe by the learned chief justice, are
without constitutional support aRd therefore
void
1t Is clearly competent in a case like this for
the citizen 10 apply to either the State or Con-
federA!e courts, as convenience or preference
may dictate, and ask as a right thas the writ of
habesE corpus be issued in bis behalf And
which ever thus gets jurisdiction will hold to it
to the absolute exclusion of the other To hold
any other doeIine-espeeially IS we are now
circumstanced, would be in effect 10 deny the
privileges Of the writ in at lesst Seven-teDths Of
the eases, if not all easss-because of the in.
convenience and expensiveness Of access to the
Confedersse district judges. Both Confederate
and State Constitutions ASSERT that the writ
shall not be suspended unless in cases Of rebel
lion or invasion the public safety may require
it, As no question but that arising upon the
plea to tho jurisdiction of the State courts has
been at sll presented or argued before me,
confRe my decision to that point and snnul the
/ plea. JAS. 8. Hook,
Jadge Superior Court, Middle DistIict.