Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-03-19


rrnrpr u submit In yopr reply. allow me 7"
.tv you are NOT quite consistent 9Th Yourself :
Tor r. one part OF the communication 70" give
urumiuenee a. fWo facts. nnt stated ln tue fee''
.ee,piuelv a. the bl-is Of your action. viz. The
fact that the writ is-uet Nth the c.'i-e"' D
Can Busknk. and the fsc that the boy W'-di--
charged upon a voluntary appearance. aud rn,'-
mission OF the To Won BY Capt bu-krK'
whilst in another part Of your Communication
YOU refer 70 the Provost Marshal General. 70 The
Clerk Sheriff and parties for Information IL
N fprni4tion WAS 20 be sought alone from the
S. Fis Clerk. and parties. Wy not get the N
form ati0n that the ~Tit Was issued D. consent,
aud the Appearance and submission voluntary
from the same quarter. The fsct tnat you safe
thee matters IN ines me 10 believe that YOU 6e-
sired hem 10 tie considered having had II au-
ence in the decision of the case. II so. permit
me 10 suggest that C4ot Bl.kirks consent could
hardly susDend the Presidents suspension of the
privilege OF the writ Of habeas corpns IL was
formerly well established general principle that +
consent of even the real parties Iu'es vested could
not confer Jurisdiction II my note - YOU F
stated int deemed il but right that | sh lg,d
send With the record OF the ease any explanation
OF the gsonnd- OF Your action thai YOU might zee
proper to submit In your reply YOU did not see
proper 70 state anv explain 'iou If the grounds OF
your action (unie-s the statement OF the consent
Of Gait Buskirk j. TO be thus consiiesei.) but
YOU did contrary To the letter and spirit ct my
language. intef pref me saying that u Was my
duty To- report you. instead of your decision; AMI
following this interpretation. YOU gravely ak the
question, Do judicial tribunals exist in Indiana.
or i their supposed existence dreamT ain
glad IN he able 10 saw. IN reply u TINS inquiry.
that they do exist. and without let or hindrince
from the Feieral authorities. make decisions IN
meil to the di cpline tnd efficiency OF the Fe'i-
erd sohliery whenever their judicial judgment
moves them thefeunto
A moe pertinent inquiry. think. would be
whether a portion ol the judiciary OF Indiana
recognizes the Federal authority for any purpose
or an any subject
am. sir. respectfully. your obed't servant.
CONRAD BAKER,
Col aud A + NJ G..
As we have remarked in a former article.
Judge PERKINS did not receive Col. BAKERS
second letter Till the lth inst. too late TO reou
before il was published. As reonder, We
copy an extract from The opinion in GRIFFIN vs..
WILCOX:
And while upon this subject it may not be
improper to observe that neither the President
nor Congress has bower to suspend the issuing
of the writ of habeas corpus by State Court.
From this proposition. we take il. no jurist will
dissent Indeed there is nothing in the act of
Congress OF March Sd, 1863. cited supra, that
iustihes the inference that Congress assumed to
attempt such suspension
The provision in the Constitution of the United
States touching the suspension of the writ OF hat
beas corpus ny the General Government. rs ia the
9Th section OF article l OF that instrument. aud
the Suureme Court of the Untod States. in
Banon W. the Mayor. &c, OF Baltimore. Pet.
~ 5 Rep 243. Chief Justice Marshall de
Ilverinc the opinion decided that the provisions
OF that section applied exclusively To the reeua-
ton of "the departments OF the General Gov
ernment" and had application to the depart
ments of the Slate Governments We invite
special attention To that case
So. the provisions in the Constitution OF the
United States providing that property shall not
be taken without compensation. and that crimes
must be prosecuted by Indictment. &c, only APP
/ ply 10 the courts and other dep mebts OF the
General Government. ana have no restraining
/ power upon States. their legislatures or courts
! l keut Lecture l9 Ind Rep. o55. Nor c'I
1.-The Circuit Courts U the UnItei States Interfere
with the jurisdiction OF the courts ut "A State
| Kent 4I2 Nor cin State courts interfere
with the jurisdiction ui the Uutei States, or hei
courts; and hence, while the State courts hav,
the undouhfed right 10 issue wrlts OF hAbeh'
corpus IN all cases TIL suspension at the rIgh
by the Safe legislature. they have not right {,
deliver persons held custody by legal authOrit,
OF the United States.
But 10 prevent such delivery OF persons on ha-
beas corpus, by "a State Court. II must be nad'
t. appetr 20 that Cnirt that the persons are bel,
by authority oil the United ST ties. For example
a soldier Is held under ala enlistment by an 9th
Ger of the Uued States Is he thus held b.
authority OF the United atesg / ne is eighteen
years old, or upwards, he Is, because The law u
Congress authorizes United States officers u en-
list and hold such persons Ii he j. under eish
teen, he l. not held by the officer under auhOrF
" OF the Intel States. according 10 the be-
judgment come 10, because no INV oil ia
United States authorizes him TO enlist and hOl
such minor Now. if the peti ion III srca cas-
presented TO "A Site Judge Tor witt OF habea
corpus shovel that the soldier was over eighteen
the Judge should refuse the writ. not because n
had not a right 10 issue Writs oil hahea
corpus, but because the petition wOul
show in the given Sc that he had not luri>dlc
ton, the person being held under authority OF th
United States But if the petition showed tina
I The soldier VA under eighteen. the State Judg
would have jurisdiction becau,e no iuthUrit
has been con errej by tue Uaited States 10 moi
sach persons In custody SOliier~; but the lac
that the soldier eighteen or upwards nigh
be shown To the court by the officer on the re
turn OF the wis; and IN thai event the jurlSiictlp
of the State Cpurf misht cease: al all events
might be IT. duty 10 remand the petitioner. IN
mole Of proceeding iu THESE ch-es i pohieu "t
IN Ahleman ~ Booth. u How. U ). Rep OH
IL mas be observed that. a. !, general rule, COZ
sent cuulers jurisdiction OF the person.
If the State Court decides enormously wheI
e it has jurisdiction. there should be an appeal
: enormously ami corruptly. All appeal aud an in
parchment Ii in a case where il has no lufl'
n diction. the decision should be disregarded
simply void
The Price OF Gold.
In the discussion OF the Gold Bill IN the Hons
i ON Wednesday. Mr.. THAD. STEVENS. the leadif
pa,,htc,, ~ th.t h.,dv made some remarkab