The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-10-09
,SPTRTT or THE PRESS.
-D,ToR1AI OPINIONS oP THE LEADING JOURNALS
UFoE CURRENT ToPIcs-CoMPnED EVERY
nav FOB THE EVENING TELEGRAPH.
,C,r. Attorney Generals Opinion on
~" Habeas Corpus

aHa~a
Habeas Corpus
Pyor, 0.e ~ y. Times. ..........
The babeas corpus case in Philadelphia, IN
IT'D, NV orders of the Secretary Of the Navy
a., oe;oers refused to produce seaman named
CS-o,1ou in whose behalf the writ had been
,ssued ont of the Court OF Quarter Sessions
,horo will now probably be determined with
90, onv collision between the State Courts and
,to Federal authorities, as the Secretary Of
tbe Navy, in accordance with tn 9 opinion of
the Attorney General has rescinded his former
order. and directed the man to be produced
before the Court.
A full abstract of that opinion has been pub
lished, and it furnishes some food for discus
sion. The case was one somewhat different
from those which had been before our Courts,
inasmuch as they have been cases of soldiers,
while this was case of a seaman, and the
laws in relation to the army and the navy are
not identical on this question. Still it seems
a little singular that no reference is made in
the opinion to the cases which have been
before the Courts of the United States in this
city, while on the question of the power of the
Secretary of War over the discharge of minors,
an opinion is intimated directly opposed to
what those Courts have decided.
The vital question of the opinion was
whether, where a writ of habeas corpus is
issued by State Court to a United States
officer, he is bound to produce the man
before the Court. The main decision which
was referred to on this question was, Of course,
the case of Ableman VS.. Booth, and a distinc-
ton was drawn between that case and the
present one, in that the petitioner was held by
a process issuing out of a United States Court,
while here he was held only by an officer of
the Government. In that case the Supreme
Court held clearly that the body of the petit
toner was not to be produced, but that re-
turn was to be made to the writ, setting forth
that he was held by virtue of process from a
United States Court, and theTeupon it would
become the duty of the State Court to do
nothing further on the writ, because it ap-
peared that the party was held by another
Jurisdiction.
The Acknowledgement is satisfied with
pointing out the distinction between the facts
of the two cases, which justiies, in his opinion,
the different course which he recommends to
be pursued in the present case. But after all,
is there not the same reason lying at the
bottom of both of them, and if the reason is
the same, ought not the rule to be the same
This question the Attorney General does not
touch. We understand the decision of Able
man vs.. Booth to rest upon the ground that
the Jurisdictions of the United States and of
VIZ Sse7SO OONA5o
latter ought to go no further than to see that
the party is held by authority of another juris-
dictiOn. Why does not this reason apply as
well to the executive officers of the Federal
Government as to the Federal Courts We
cannot but think that whenever this question
comes up for decision before the Supreme
Court of the United States, it will be deter
mined in the same way as the previous one.
Perhaps, however, it was just as well t.
allow this question to come before the Su
preme Court for decision in the way in whicl
it is now likely to come up, if the State Cour
should decide to discharge the man, rathe
than in the more violent way of refusal t
obey the writ and an attachment for contempt
But if the State Court should decide that tn
man was not entitled to be discharged, an
must be remanded to the navy, then this ques
tion will not reach the Supreme Court in thi
case. 1t is, however, a question which mu:
one day be decided, and the sooner the bette
for all parties. 1t is important that these ma
ters should as soon as possible become matte
of settled law.