New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-11-19
NEW ORLEANS REPUBLICAN THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 49, l74s

posse. II is no longer, then, process OF
law--it IL one body Of citizens against an
other, both observing authority the Ia"
forbids them to disobey. ~
With these remarks the following ar-
ticle from the Louisiana IntelHyencer OF
the fourth instant is submitted:
Use OF HABEAs CORPUS BIZ STATE COURTS.
Conflicts Of jurisdiction having lately
arisen in this part Of the State in cOnse-
auence. presumably, of the Ignorance OF
officers OF State courts of their limited rlsht
to use the writ Of habeas corpus IN favor OF
parties under arrest by United States au-
thoritv, we refer to the question tor Their
information, as in another article we re-
terred to the question az presented IN Tue
case of writ improperly directed; we now
examine it as presented when the writ IS
directed 10 the officer having actual CUSTODY
of the persons sought to be relieved there
by. The first principle involved is clearly
that of Jurisdiction. The case of Hagan vs..
Lucas 10 Peters, 400. authUritatively settles
that in cases where United States and State
courts have concurrent jurisdiction, that
authority first seized thereof shall retain
the same.
In the leading case of Ableman ys. Booth,
u k1OWdIU, COU, ~ vac SC0IOA W SA-ASA y
tice fancy, as the unanimous opinion OF the
United States Supreme Court, that While
the State Judge may inquire by writ oi
haheas corpus of the United States marshal
by what authority he holds his prisoner,
and it shall be the duty of the marshal, II
the writ be properly directed to him, to re-
turn thereon by what authority 10 hoiCs
him: such return shall be final and conclu-
s;ve upon the State court. The Chief Justice
>bor ia rho AHfv Of fNA
marshal to hold the custody and obey the
United States process, and to refuse ohe'
dence TO the mandate or process OF any
other government, and consequently ~ Is
his duty no, TO take the prisoner or suffer
him to be taken before a State judge OF
court, on habeas corpus issued Oy State
authority. and that for very conclusive
reason. the State court is precluded
from inquiring into the facts or the
merits. the existence Of the legal
process from United States authority ia
the cole end and assigned limit 0: its
inquiry, and this inquiry is satisfied by the
marshal's return in writing. II the author
ity OF the State in the form of judicial pro-
cess, or otherwise, should attempt to con-
troll the marshal or other authorized officer
or agent Of the United States III any respect
in the custody of his prisoner. it will be the
marshal's duty to reeist, and TO call 70 his
aid any force that may be necessary to
MAINTAIN the authority Of law against illegal
interference. The court in that case further
laid down as the supreme law. that no
judicial process, whatever form it may as
sumo. can have any lawful authority out
side OF the limits Of the jurisdiction Of the
court or Judge by whom it was issued, aud
that any attempt 60 enforce it beyond these
boundaries 10 nothing less than lawless
violence. How far this authoritative view
<hN Of Sho IY0jtA1 SrafQa may con.
form 70 recent proceedings in this and an
adjoining judicial district, our legal readers
are qualified to judge.-.No"roe Intelligent
(er.