The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1885-02-04

of the revised statutes, the states were pro-
hibited from making such an act punishable
or giving their courts Jurisdiction over IL,
and that therefore the state court had no
proper jurisdiction, and their judgment was
void; secondly, that the man was restrained
of his liberty in violation of the laws of
the United States" and therefore came
within the provisions of the act of 1867.
Notwithstanding the high character of the
judge by whom this decision was made, the
committee is not ready to accede to the
soundness of either proposition on which
the decision was based. 1t certainly admits
of very grave doubt whether congress has
any constitutional power to prevent the
states from making such acts crimes against
the state, and giving jurisdiction to their
courts to punish them. They do not, how
ever, desire to enter into any argument as
to the soundness or unsoundness of this par
ticular decision. The fact is apparent that,
il this jurisdiction is sustained, the final
judgments of the highest courts of the states
may be held void and overturned by single
federal Judge of the lowest judicial rank
and from his decision there is no appeal
He reviews some similar decisions by the
federal judges in California, where it was
held that any unlawful imprisonment by
anybody, for any cause, is without due pro-
ces OF law and therefore within federal
habeas corpus jurisdiction. In Poland's
words If this reasoning be sound, federal
courts and judges have sole jurisdiction in
all cases of imprisonment under federal au-
thority, and concurrent jurisdiction with the
state courts and judges in all other cases.
Poland then says: THESE cases and some
others that might be cited, show that under
this act of 1867. the early and long estab-
lished idea of keeping the jurisdiction of
national and state tribunals distinct and
separate as to this class of cases, is entirely
overturned. The committee do not believe
that congress, in passing the act of 1867, in
tended any such thing, or that the true con-
struction of the act warrants any such
thing. Nor does there seem to have been
any occasion for such action, or to stretch
federal jurisdiction into the clear domain OF
state jurisdiction, as has been done. In the
Vermont case, if the petitioner claimed that
the Vermont statute, under which he
was convicted, conticted with the ma
tional statute, writ of error would
have carried his case to the supreme court of
the United States, If the state court decided
against his contention So, If he did not
raise the question on his trial-but the
court had no jurisdiction, so that the con-
viction and sentence were void-the state
courts and judges had ample jurisdiction to
relieve him on habeas corpus. The same
may be said, in substance, of the other cases
But if the act of 1867 intended to allow in
reference in cases of arrests by state officers
under state authority, the committee dc
not believe that it was contemplated by Its
trainers, or can properly be construed tC
authorize the overthrow of the final judg.
ments of the state courts of general juris
diction, by the inferior federal judges
whose judgments shall be final, and thus
make them court of errors over the highest
tribunals of the states. The supreme court
as early as ex parte Watkins pet, 1913, de
cided that when court had pronounced
Judgment in case where it has general ju
risdiction of the subject matter, that judg
ment, unless reversed in a direct proceeding
for that purpose, pronounces the law OF thu
case. The jurisdiction assumed by fedora
judges, if allowed to continue, and contnu,
unrestrained and unquestioned, cannot fai
to bring the two Judicial systems int
serious and painful conflict, unless thu
state courts shall tamely submit to be shorI
of the jurisdiction they have exclusively eX
ercised since the government existed"