Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1880-03-24

. III VI NAhchhAtI bAPhA aNi
HAMILTON COMPARED WITH BRAD /
LEY's AND sTRoNG's-AN An 81
sURp AND uScoNsTT Do
Il u irs TuTIoNAL LAW srstlb f
ta DissEoTED a1iha ,a
| A ---- N1
Oaieiai Text OfJsnice FIELD, Late Opinion.
w | cannot assent TO the decision Of th,
majority OF the court in these cases
and | will state the reasons of my dis
sent. One Of the six petitioners is 4
citizen OF Ohio, and the other five are
Ioitizens Of Maryland. They all seeli
a discharge from Imprisonment i'm
posed by judgments OF Federal courts
for alleged official misconduct as Judges
OF election IN their respective States.
4 Al an election held in tho First Con
gressional district of Ohio, in October
1879, at which q Representative il
Congress was voted for, the petitioner
from that State was appointed under
its laws, and acted as a Judge of elec
ton at precinct in one Of the wards
of the city of Cincinnati AT an elec
ton held in the Fourth and Fifth Con
gressional districts of Maryland, N
November, 1878, at which Represen
tative in Congress was voted for, tht
petitioners from that State were ap
pointed under its laws, and acted al
Judges of election at different precint'
in the wards Of the city Of Baltimore
For alleged misconduct as such officers
the petitioners were indicted in the
Circuit courts of the United States fol
their respective districts, tried, con
victed and sentenced to Imprisonment
for twelve months, and, in some o
the cases, also to pay fine.
THE OHIO CASE CONSIDERED.
In what have to say / shall con
fine myself principally TO the case Of
the petitioner from Ohio the other
cases viii be incidentally considered
In that case, the petitioner is charged
with having violated a law Of the State
In the cases from Maryland the peti
TONERS are charged with having pre-
vented Federal officers from interier.
ing with them and supervising their
action in the execution of the laws Of
the State. The principle which gov.
erns one will dispose OF all of them
for if Congress cannot punish an officer
of q State for the manner in which he
discharges his duties under her laws
it cannot subject him to the supcrvi
sion and control of others in the per,
formancc OF such duties and punish
him for resisting their interference. In
the cases from Maryland it appears
that the laws OF the State under which
the petitioners were appointed judges
of election, and the registration ol
voters for the election of 1873 was
made, were not in existence when the
act Of Congress was passed providing
for the appointment of supervisors to
examine the registration aud scrutinize
the lists, and of special deputy mar
shals TO aid and protect thcm. The
act of Congress was passed in 1Sil
and republished in the Revised Statutes
which urv deulaIatory OF the law oi
Maryland, under which the registra
tion OF voters was had, was enacted in
1874, and the law under which the
judges of election were appointed wa:
enacted in 1876, and these judges were
required to possess different qualifica
tions from those required Of judges oi
election in 1871 and 1873. T
In all the cases the petitioners are
imprisoned under the Judgments
against them, and each one insisting
that the Circuit court, in his case ais
ted without jurisdiction, and thwful
imprisonment is, therefore. IS citi.
and subversive Of his right for writ
zen, has pctitoned tins the modes by
ofhaJeas corpus is op1urisdiction will
which its appcllss where it is alleged
be exercised inon of an inferior tnbu.
that by the Of the United States has
hal nara a llinNwlully deprived of his per-
oeen Hbo,,y and, if necessary, that
sonayllaTi will be issued with the writ
% bring up for examination the record
of the proceedings of the inlerlor tn
bunaI. In such eases we look INTO
that record to see. not whether the
court erred in it, rulings but whether
it had jurisdiction 10 imprisonment
complained of II 1t had Jurisdiction,
our examination ends, and the case
must await determination IN the ordi'
nary course OF procedure on writ OF
error or appeal, should the case be one
which can thus be brought under our
review But II the court below was
without jurisdiction OF the matter upon
which the Judgment OF imprisonment
was rendered, or int exceeded ITS juris'
diction in dhe extent OF the imprison-
ment imposed, this court will Interfere
and discharge the petitioner II, there
fore, the act Of Congress, in seeking to
impose a punishment upon State Off
Ger in one of these cases for disobeying
law OF tne 9late, ana IN other cases
l0r N1 resisting 'ne interference OF redeIai
ohclals WIN ,he ulscnarge o. nus uu,
ucs unuer sucn Jaw, u uncons'ltutiohai
ana am vo'u, tne judgment 0i tne circuit
ours @ ts,t are un,awlul , anu '"o po'''on-
ers snoulu DC releaseu'
40 nov regard 'ne presentation oy
the petitioner rom ONO OF ms petition
70 y, one OF tno lusllces ol lne court ~ 10
.no s nrs. lns'""uv 's y iac' ~ az hnecl,
ing his . ease, M ms pes,.lIh pu is auaresseu is
70 'nls cour, anu enougn .nc lusuce,