The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1864-04-22

MATTHEW BRIDrsrHAr. Ha'eds corpus.
Bridenthal, deputy provost marshal of the
United States Government, was arrested and
imprisoned by justice of the peace of Sibley
county, charged with the crime of manslaugh-
ter.
In the petition presented for writ of habeas
corpus 1t s set forth that all of his action in the
premises, upon which the charge is based, was
lawful, and in the discharge Of his duty as an
officer of the military department of the gov
yernment, and while acting in pursuance Of his
instructions. I 1888
I The return of the Sheriff of Scott county,
who mad the prisoner in charge. says that he
holds him by virtue of warrant of commit
ment issued by justice of the peace Of Sibley
county, and an order from Judge Branson, Of
the District Court of the State Of Minnesota,
authorizing his confinement in Scott county
Jail, there being no common Jail in Sibley
county. l-, -
This writ of habeas corpus was Issued under
the act of Congress of March 2, 1888. The 7th
of the Supreme Court, or judge Of the Dis.
trict Court of the United States, in addition to
the authority already conferred by law, shall
have power to grant Writs of habeas corpus in
all cases of a prisoner or prisoners in Jail or
confinement, where he or they shall be COM
mitted or confined on or BY any authority or lasc
for any act done o., omitted to Be done in pur.u-
esace Of le.v of the United States, or any order.
process or decree of any Judge or Court there
Of, any thing In any act of Congress to the con-
trary notwithstanding" -.J5leaa ...;.
i Upon the hearing Credentials official posi-
ton was proved, and 1t was shown that one of
the duties Of his Office was to arrest deserters
from the army, and that In the discharge of
this duty in this instance he did not exceed the
authority conferred upon him by law. .,.5 e.
The case, then, as presented, comes clearly
within the provisions of the statute of 1888.
Bridenthal as Deputy Provost Marahal shot
deserter from the army of the United States,
while attempting to escape and avoid arrest
He had the authority of law TO do this
under certain circumstances, and the exigency
of the case seemed to require it In this in
stance. a9isi" .tt ..-u...t-.N
The only issue before US Is whether an officer
of the Cove nment has been wrongfnlly and
Illegally arrested and imprisoned. The war
rant of commitment issued by the Justice of
the Peace Is not conclusive evidence that the
Imprisonment is lawful. We must go behind the
warrant and inquire whether there is sufficient
grounds to authorize the arrest and imprison-
ment. We have done so, and are satisfied that
the act was done by the officer in pursuance of
law while discharging his duty. ssI
It might be urged that the District Judge
had no jurisdiction in this case, and could not
discharge person who appears to have been ar
rested and imprisoned by State authority for an
alleged offense against her criminal laws
reference to the act of Congress above quoted,
however, shows that no exception is made in
such cases. The Judges of the United States
onmcnt is "by trsy authority" for an act COM
mitted in pursuance of a law of the United
States i.rl. .-
Being satisfied, therefore, that the imprison-
ment is unlawful, the prisoner is discharged.
K. r. NELSON, U. 8. Judge