The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-09-27
Philadelphia vs.. the United states of
Amarfca.

in reference TO the habeas corpus cases IN
which Captain A. M. Brown and Commodore
Selfridge were the respondents. We felt called
upon to notice in becoming manner the
action of the Hon. William B. Mann, who
accused the Secretary of the Navy of having
descended to the level of the blaokguard, and
then took advantage of this supposed descent
on the part of the Secretary to handy about
such words as 'whelp," 'rufhan, f" "highway-
man, " and 'blaokguard," with luency and
zeal that would have shocked a fshwoman
fresh from Billingsgate. We propose now TO
discuss this so-oaled conflict of authority in
the light which the unquestioned law upon
the subject affords. 1t will be remembered
that Captain A. M. Brown, of the regular
army-a man who served his country faith
fully during the war, and is yet suffering from
wounds received in battle-while on duty as a
recruiting officer in this city, enlisted
person by the name of Hamilton, who de-
serted, and was subsequently captured and
ordered to stand his trial before oourt-mar-
tial for this offense. Bis friends thereupon
sued out writ of habeas corpus before Judge
Pierce, and Captain Brown, in compliance with
a vicious custom which has arisen in this
city, appeared in person in making the return.
The ground on which the release Of Hamilton
was claimed was his alleged minority, while
ho himself had sworn that lao waa Of full age.
This question: however, could not be investi
gated because Captain Brown. IN tho discharge
of his plain duty, had caused Hamilton to be
conducted TO Governors Island, in New Ybtb
harbor, thore 10 anawer the charge Of deset-
tion. Under these circumstances. t was
quite impossible for Captain brown 60 rfs
duco tho body OF Hamilton in Ueaft. sal
because OF this Judge rieree committed him
TO tho County Prison fei eentempt he 10
uained i'm dutanee fot couple sf weeks aNI
then effected his Escape bY vefr ingenious
legal trick, AZ there was che riesrses ~ sn
indefinite imprisonment before h@, We ims
Eine that but few reteepa will tiame him Ms
| getting himself eet Of custody in che asst anA
bont way that presented,
Commodore Selnidge. the oen,msudset ef che
Navy Yard, has been made the respondent ~
two wrilB of haheaa eerPu' bv bath af which e
ii sought 20 discharge nom the navy pe,sehs
who were regularly enlisted on the alleged
both cases, Commodore eel0idge made eeu,-
teous return, simply denying the iutiadietion
OF the Court and refuuing Go produce che
bodies, In accordance with iuatrucsiepa TO
ceived from the Secretary et the Navy, These
two last cases will tomorrow merntss asgMe
before the Court, in full bench, for consiiera-
tion, Judge Pierce having entered rule. re-
AT rat 20 ahru -
attachment upon Commodore Sslfr3zs sgg
contempt of Court should not BE- issusd. Mszzs-
while the Secretary Of shs Navy hss ,sr~sws5
his instructions 90 ths Cozls.aa.azs II ias
Navy Yard to resist By aosss eaz sSGezaps On
the part Of the State aUGsoysSss N p5aHe him
under arrest, and not 70 1sa5gts s19b ne
streets Of the city without bsisE sG>Dsa yssis1
by an armed guard Of marines.
/ The law upon the question With viii ggas
/ up for argument tomorrow m0rbipg is 1st1
simple and very clear. The case 6f Abtemaa
VS.. Booth, which was decided by tbs juptsms
Court Of the United States, in Dsostabsr, 1865,
bears directly upon the point NJ issue. This
case arose from the discharge by the Supreme
Court OF Wisconsin, through the agency Of the
| "'N W A''"O'No NVipubI VI OlblI0u OF thAt
state who had been imprisoned for interfering
win the enforcement Of the Fugitive Slave
law oil le5O II Is true that in tho oases pend
ing in this city, the bodies over which tho
contest is waged are in tho custody Of tho
= military and naval authorities, aud not of tho
civil authorities OF the United states. I,ut
, this does not diminish the force OF tho decision
!, OF the Supreme Court, as the peculiar ohar
acter OF the restraint imposed upon person
in whose behalf writ of haboas corpu, Is
demanded, is Of no moment whatever. The
opinion of the Court in the case Of A6loman va
Booth was delivered by Chief Justice Taney
and receives additional weight from the fact
that it aimed powerful blow at the doctrin,
of States rights, Of which the late Chief Jus
: tice was such Jealous advocate. Nor was 4
. questioned by any other Judge then upon th,
: bench, there being no dissenting opinion.
: Said the Chief Justioe:-''No State can au
: thOrize one of its judges or courts to exerois,
,, judicial power, by habeds corpus or otherwise
within the jurisdiction of another and indepen
dent government. And although the State o
, Wisconsin is sovereign within its terrtoria
: limits to certain extent that sovereignty 4
limited and restricted by the Constitution o
the United States. We do no
: question the authority of State court or judge