Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-03-21

whilst IN another part OF your communication
YOU refer to The Provost Marshal General. to the
Clerk, Sheriff, and parties for Information. If
information was 10 be sought alone from the
Sheriff. Clerk. and parties why not get the IN
formation that the writ issued by consent.
and the appearance and submission voluntary
from the same Quarter. The fact that you stale
these matters inclines me to believe that you de-
sired them To be considered as having had nfu
ence in the decision Of the case. If so. permit
me to suggest that Capt Buskirk's consent could
hardly suspend the Presidents suspension of the
privilege of the writ Of habeas corpus IL was
formerly well established general principle that
consent Of even the real parties interested could
not confer jurisdiction. In my note to you l.
stated that deemed it but right that should
send with the record of the case any explanation
of the grounds Of your action that you might see
proper to submit In your reply you did not see
proper to state any explanation of the grounds of
your action (unless the statement Of the consent
of Capt Buskirk is to be thus considered but
you did contrary to the letter and spirit of my
language, interpret me saying that it was my
duty toreport you. instead of your decision; and
following this Interpretation, YOU gravely ask the
question, "DO judicial tribunals exist in Indiana,
or is their supposed existence dreamr" / am
glad to be able to say, in reply to this inquiry,
that they do exist, and without let or hindrance
from the Federal authorities. make decisions in
imical to the discipline and efficiency Of the Fed
eral soldiery whenever their judicial judgment
moves them tbereuDto.
more pertinent inquiry. think. would be
whether a portion OF the Judiciary OF Indiana
recognizes the Federal authority for any purpose
or any subject.
l am. sir. respectfully, your obed't servant,
CONRAD BAKER,
Col and A. Z. nj. G..
As we have remarked in a former article,
Judge PERKINS did not receive Col BsKERs
second letter Till the th inst too late to rejoiu
before it was published. As reoinder, we
copy an extract from the opinion in GRIFFIN vs..
WILcoR:
land while upon this subject il may not be
improper 10 observe that neither the President
nor Congress has power to suspend the issuing
of the writ of habeas corpus by State Court.
From this proposition, take il, no jurist will
dissent Indeed there is nothing in the act Of
Congress of March Sd. 1863. cited supra, that
justifes 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 ha-
beas corpus by the General Government, is in the
9th section of article / of that instrument. and
the Supreme Court of the United States. in
Barron VS.. the Mayor, &c, of Baltimore, Pet.
D ]
livering the opinion, decided that the provisions
of that section applied exclusively to the regula-
ton Of "the departments OF the General Gov
ernment," and had no application to the depart
ments of the State Governments. We invite
special attention 20 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
81. nj ia
General Government, and have no restraining
power upon States their legislatures or courts.
l Kent. Lecture 10; Ind Rep. $50. Nor can
"the Circuit Courts OF the United States interfere
with the jurisdiction of the courts of State. "
| Kent, D 4l2 Nor can State courts interfere
with the jurisdiction of the United States or her
courts; and, hence, while the State courts have
the undOubted right TO issue writs of habeas
corpus in all cases. till suspension of the right
by the State legislature, they have not right TO
deliver persons held in custody by legal authority
of the United States.
But to prev ent such delivery of persons on ha-
beas corpus, by State Court, it must be made
20 appear TO that Court that the persons are held
by authority of the United Suites. For example
a soldier is held under an enlistment by an OFF,
Ger of the United States Is he thus held by
authority OF the United States? If he is eighteen
years old, or upwards. he is, because the law of
congress autUOTlLtS OHlceTo W eIl-
list and hold such persons. If he is under eigh-
teen, he is not held by the officer under authOri-
" of the intel States, according to the best
judgment can come to, because no law Of the
United States anthorises him to enlist and hold
such minor Now. the petition in such case
presented to a Site Judge for writ of habeas
corpus showed that the soldier was over eighteen,
the Judge should refuse the writ, not because he
had not "A right to issue writs of habeas
corpus, but because the petition would
show, in the given case, that he had not jurisdic
ton, the person being held under authority of the
I United States. But if the petition showed that
the soldier WAS under eighteen. the State Judge
would have jurisdiction. because no authority
has been conferred by the United States to hold
such persons in custody soldiers; but the fact
thlt the soldier eighteen upwards might
be shown to the court by the officer on the re-
of the wri:. and in that event the jurisdiction
of the State Court might ceise; at alt events. il
might be its duty to remand the petitioner. The
mole of proceeding in these cases is pointed out
in Ahleman vs. Booth. 81 How. u S. Rep, 500.
1t may be observed that, as a general rule, con-
sent confers jurisdiction of the person.
If the State Court decides enormously where
il has jurisdiction. there should be an appeal. II
enormously and corruptly. appeal and an inn
parchment If in case where it has 10 juris-
diction. the decision should be disregarded as
simply void.
I