The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1865-11-04

state. This was settled BY the Supreme
Court a. late as the year 1915, Il the case II
Sd Howard, before referred %.
This 14th Section IS commented upon ~
Judge Washington, with bis usual grea
elearness and ability, in the case Of &c part,
| CruJrera, l Washington, Cirenit Court Re
ports, 232. That was stronger case ior the
| exercise Of the power 70 grant the writ than
the present application. Don Joseph de
Cabrera was an sdjoint Secretary If the
Spanish Legation, residing near the United
/ States he was under she protection OF the
4 law ofustious, and not auenable TO the tn
bunals Of this country upon eivll OF erlni-
/ nal charge. The 25th Section Of the Law
| emitted An set for the punishment Of Ger
i tain crimes against the United Stetes,,' had
| declared that call process sued out in anv Of
the courts Of the United States, or Of any
particular State, or by any Judge or Justice
| therein. respectively against the person or
effects Of any public minister, or Of his do
uestics. shall be deemed null and void -
and the 26th Section Of said last mentioned
act declares that any person suing out such
process shall be punished, on conviction
with fine and imprisonment
Cabrera was srrested and imprisoned IN
der the authority Of the State Of Pennsylva-
MIA, and yet at this, the Federal Court be-
plieation for writ Of habeas corpus, was
satisfied that it YVES the duty If the State
Court 10 have quashed the proceedings as
altogether void; yet upon the law 90 it stood,
the application was refused. upon the
ground that the law Of 1859, and no other
law Of Congress, had given the Court the
power to grant t.
! regard the autho.i cited above, aud
the principles laid We, as conclusive
against the right Of your Honor to grant the
habeas corpus asked for il the pending ap
plicstiOn.
But does the fact that the President, in
pursuance Of the 18th section Of the Act Of |
July Il, 1862, has issued his proclamation |
Of Amnesty, which the petitioner has &C
cepted, affect in any manner the provisions |
Of the proviso 20 the Il section Of the Act Of 1
1883, so as to give your Honor power which |
the Courts or Judges Of the United States |
did net possess under the Act of 1889, be- |
fore the proclamation.
The petitioner was indicted in the Cir /
cult Court Of Knox county for murder, and 4
is imprisoned under the authority of the /
State of Tennessee. He had, il is true,
made himself liable 10 heavy pains and /
penalties for violations of the laws Of the /
United States in his connection with the /
recent rebellion. So far as these laws and /
their enforcement, as against him BY the |
authority of the United States, was con
cerned, if he was not excepted out Of the
benefits Of the Amnesty Proclamation, and /
accepted the same, and compiled with its
conditions, he was entitled to a full exemp-
ton from any prosecution for their violation.
We think the Proclamation could in no way
enlarge the power Of the National Courts or
Judges; under the settled rules IN reference
to the powers and Jurisdiction Of the Ma
tional Courts.
The Stste Court has Jurisdiction. It has
assumed 1t, aud it cannot either upon prin-
ciple or authority be iDteriered WITH. If
the defendant should be convicted in the
S ate Court be may take The case 10 the
Supreme Court Of the State Of Tennessee.
Of course, the question arising upon the
validity Of the Act Of Congress authorizing
the proclamation OF amnesty and the pro
clamation itself which has the force of
public law will be involved, and if the Su-
preme Court Of the State shall decide
against the validity of the act and procla-
on, or either, as iG affects the defendant,
writ OF error lies 10 the Supreme Court Of
he United States.
On account of the crowded state of our
we are compelled 70 omit the
lrgumeut Of Hon. Jorden Stokes, till to-
morrow