The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-11-27

| Sheriff, prisoners who have been sentenced
by State court. In the Wisconsin case,
the language of the Supreme Court Of the
United States only needs TO have the rea-
tive positions of the two courts changed,
i'm order to make 1t apparent that neither
of them can interfere with the judgments
Of the other.
In the Wisconsin case the Supreme Court
Of the United States said:
"The powers Of the general Government and
| OF the state, although both exist and are cxer-
| cisrd within the same territorial limits. are vet
separatc and distinct sovercignties. acting sepa-
| tetv and indet evidently Of Oh other WITHIN
| their respective spheres. And the sphere of
| action appro. rated to the Uni,ed states ~ as
| sued by n ~ re judge or SITE court ~ N tho
| line OF DIVISION was traced by land marks aud
| monuments visible To the eye.'
just so, the sphere of action appropri-
ated to n state court is rs far beyond the
reach Of the judicial process issued by
Federal court n If the line of division was
marked by u stone wall. In this wscon-
sin case, too, the Supreme Court of the
United States, although IL said that by
proper return to writ of habeas corpus
| the authority under which u prisoner is
| detained must be shown, yet that II Is the
| imperative duty of the executive officer
| holding custody of the prisoner under
process, to maintain that custody and to
refuse obedience to tho mandate or pro-
cess of any other Government. 1.-THE Wis
consin case Is ABLEMAN agt. BooTn, report
ed in 2lst HowARD, 5O6
Nor will it be possible for Judge BOND
to draw To himself by writ of habeas cor
pus or otherwise, the decision Of the ques-
ton whether the state Supreme Court had
| jurisdiction to order and direct the Return
| ing Board us TO the manner In which they
were to discharge their duties in counting
the votes for Presidential electors. The
Supreme Court of South Carolina was fully
| competent 10 decide this question of juris-
diction for itself. and there is not
single element in ii by which revision of
| their decision can be drawn into any court
| Of the United States. Here, too, the Wis
consin case will meet Judge BoND Mt once
| IL he undertakes to act. In that case the
| state court undertook to say that the
| Federal court had no jurisdiction 10 SEN
| tence the prisoner, because the law under
which he was indicted was unconstitu-
| tional. The Supreme Court of the United
| States said that the District Court of the
diction for itself, and that no state court
| could revise that decision.
| IL may be as well to add. concerning the
authority Of the Supreme Court OF South
Carolina TO issue the mandamus which the
members Of the Returning Board have
chosen to defy. that there can be no doubt
whatever on the subject. 1t is one OF the
functions OF the highest judicial authority
III every State Government to exercise
supervisory power over all Inferior tri-
bunals, boards, and magistrates charged
| with the performance Of any public duty.
This supervisory power may be exercised
in two ways: by writ Of error, if errors
are committed and by mandamus. if the
inferior tribunal does not perform it, duty
accoI ding to law. A board Of returning
officers charged with the duty of ascer-
tanning aud certifying the results of an
election, is no more exempt from this SUI
pervsory power of the highest judicial
authority than the members of any other
inferior tribunal. This experimenting
power of the highest judicial tribunal
is the only means by which inferior
bodies can be compelled to act according
to law. when they are disposed To act con-
liuIN 10 INV, OF With lneN lEuoIHutly
mistake their duty. In fact, this juri-dic-
ton extends by mandamus not only 10
the direction of returning officers in the
mode of discharging their duty while they
are acting, hut to the compelling them to
give n certificate of election to the person
legally entitled To It, although they may
have given certificate 10 person not so
entitled. This was decided more than
seventy years ago in the case Of the King
agt. the Mayor of York; and 1t is n
sound law IN America to-day rs il has been
in ENGLAND from time immemoral. Tn
less, therefore. mere brute force is used To
tramplo down the authority of the SUI
prcme Court of South Carolina. the whole
country may rest assured that whoever
appears to have been duly elected TO any
office in that STATE. Including the prcsidcu-
tial electors, will receive the proper certiii-
AT Of