The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-11-27
what Can Judge Bond Do about II

The supreme Court of the state OF South
Carolina having punished by imprisonment
the members of the Returning Board for n
contempt committed in disobeying and
acting contrary TO the mandamus issued
by that court, the presence in South Caro-
lua of Judge BOND, United States Circuit
Judge Of that Federal circuit, has given
rise to the inquiry whether lie will be like
ly and be able tointerfere with this solemn
judgment Of the State court. The only
mode in which such an Interference can he
suggested is that Judge BOND should issue
writ Of habeas corpus, have the prisoners
brought before him, inquire into the juris-
diction of the state court to inf ct the
punishment which they have Inflicted. and
TO discharge the prisoners If he decides that
the state court had no jurisdiction TO rem
der the judgment which they have pro-
nounced.
There is no other way in which Judge
BoND can reach these refractory persons.
Can he reach them in this way,
Lawyers who are familiar with such sub
iects will bear us out in saying that If an
application is made to Judge BoND for q
writ of habcas corpus he should regularly
issue an order to the sheriff to show cause
why the writ should not issue, in order
that his jurisdiction TO inquire into the
cause OF the commitment may be first de-
termned. This Is usual. aud Away proper,
when those who apply for the writ are in
custody under the judgment of another
tribunal. But suppose that Judge BoND
should issue the writ at once. The return
would show that the prisoners are in the
custody of the Sheriff under Judgment
rendered by tho Supreme Court of the
state. The question then would be whether
II Federal court has power to inquire into
the jurisdiction of n State court to render
a judgment innicting punishment for Il
contempt of the orders OF that court. on
this question there cannot be two opinions.
In the first place, the Circuit Courts of
| the United states have no jurisdiction ex-
| cepung such as has been conferred upon
them by statute. Their jurisdiction to is
sue wrlts OF habeas corpus Is regulated by
Il provision which declares in express
| terms;
" he writ of habeas corpus shall In no case
extend 10 "A prisoner ~ jaii. unless where he Is
IN custody under or 10y color OF the authority Of
the United sta e.. or D. committed for tril no.
fore some court tn renf; or il ia custody for an
| act done or omitted, IN pursuance Of a law Of
| the United States, or Of IN order. process, or
| decree OF "A court, or Judge thereof or l. in
custody In violation OF tue Constitution, or II a
| law or treaty uf the United states or, being a
subject ar citizen OF foreign state, and don't
cilcd therein, Is in custody Tor an set done or
omitted uruer any alleged right, title, author
| itV privilege, protection, or exemption 81 timed
under the commission, or Oruer, or sanction Of
anS foreign State, or under color thereof, the
validity and effect whereof depend upon the law
OF n ltiOns or unless II Is necessary to bring
the prisoner into court to testify lReNisCd
Statutes Of United states, section ij3l
The case of n prisoner in Jail under a
commitment by State court for a con-
tempt Of its process, is within neither of
these categores.
In the second place. this question of the
powers of the state ana Federal courts, to
interfere with the judgments of ench
| other, Is not new one. II arose in 1853,
| when the Supreme Court of the State of
Wisconsin, undertook by habeas corpus to
| take out of the custody of the United
| States Marshal and to discharge "A prisoner
who had been sentenced by the District
| Court of the United States for an offence
| against law OF the United States. This
was simply the converse of what this case
would be, if Judge BoSD were to under
! take TO discharge from the custody Of the