Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-03-18
THE NICOLAUS CASE.
Another Postponement-Copflic of State
and Federal Authorities


AT 10 A. M yesterday, the time set for the
examination of the Nicolaus rioters before
United States Commissioner B. n. Buebev
Deputy Marshal T. G. Robinson was served
with writ of habeas corpus issued bv
Judge W. c. Van Fleet of the Superior
Court, commanding him to have the pris.
oners in Court at 1:30 P. NJ. The petition
Tor the writ recites that the men are nm.
lawfully imprisoned, detained. confined
and restrained of their liberty by one r. G
Robinson, at the city of Sacramento. Cali
fornla. That the said imprisonment. de-
tention, confinement and restraint are lille.
gal, and that the Illegally thereof consists
IN this, to wit That the said t. G. Robin
son, as Deputy Marshal of the United
States, holds the said petitioners in said
confinement under warrant issued bv one
Is. n. Bugbey, Commissioner of the
United States Circuit Court, under and by
virtue OF Section 55l9 of the Revised Stat
utes OF the United States, for the alleged of
tense OF conspiring together and driving
from the town of Nicolaus. Suffer conntv
certain aliens. who are subjects of the En-.
plre OF China. That the said section of the
Revised Statutes is unconstitutional. and
the SAID Commissioner has no jurisdiction
OF said oftense, and the said arrest and con.
nnement OF your petitioners by the said 7
II. Robinson, upon said charges. is an I'M.
wa-rantable interference by Federal Off
cial with the authority of the Government
of this State.
Upon this showing Add. C. Hinkson. Of
counsel for the prosecution, asked Com.
missioner Bugbey to continue the cases I'M
I'll 10 A. NJ. to-day, and it was so ordered.
When the prisoners were brought into
Court at 1:30 P. NJ. General Hart addressed
| the Court, saying that since the issuance o
the writ OF habeas corpus he had becom,
| convinced, by the examination of authori
| ties, that the Superior Court had no iuris
dlctlon over persons in charge of Fed
eral officer, and therefore asked that thu
petition be Withdrawn. 1t was SO ordered
Judge Van Fleet said he was convinced
that he had no authority i'll the matter
| and had decided to remand the prisoner:
back into the custody of the Marshal. The
Judge referred the attorneys to decision
rendered by Judge Wallace in which tht
latter referred to the case of Ableman VS.
Borth III How. U. S. Reports, 523), say
ing: The question of the power Of the
State Courts to deal with persons detained
as the petitioner is (by the Federal authori
| ties) was discussed by Chief Justice Taney
with his accustomed ability, and it wa.
| there held that when the return to the wri
| is made, and the State Court or Judge
| is judicially apprised that the party is il
custody under the authority of the United
States, they can proceed no further "They
then know" says the Chief Justice, % tha
the prisoner is within the dominion anC
jurisdiction of another Government, anC
that neither the writ of habeas corpus MOI
any other process issued under State au
| thority can pass over the line of division
| between the two sovereignties. He is Their
| under the domain and exclusive iurisdic
ton of the United States. If he has com
mitted an offense against their laws theil
| tribunals can release him and afford hin
redress"
Chief Justice fancy, in the same de
cision, also said If the authority of {
State, in the form of judicial process o.
otherwise, should attempt TO control tn,
| Marshal or other authorized officer or agen
OF the United States in any respect, in the
custody of his prisoner, it would be hi:
duty TO resist it, and to call to his aid an,
force that might be necessary to maintain
the authority of law against illegal inter
ference. No judicial process, whatever
form it may assume, can have any Lawful
authority outside of the limits of the iuris
| diction Of the Court or Judge by whom i
is issued, and an attempt to enforce it be
yond these boundaries is nothing less thar
| lawless violence"
Judge Armstrong, of counsel for prose
cution, says that Judge Sawyer, of til,
! United States District Court. issued oil
Monday a writ of habeas corpus, but after
wards recalled it, giving as his reason 70
the latter action that he thought the de
| PENDANTS had been examined While il
San Francisco, Tuesday, Judge Armstrong
| Consul Bee and United States Attorne,
Hebron agreed to dismiss all the defend
ants but one on their own recognizance
and as soon as his examination was over t,
allow him to be released on habeas corpus
This would be done in order to carry tn
case Immediately to the Supreme Court O
the United States, with view of testinj
the constitutionality of the law Mr.. Hink
son said he made that proposition to coun
sci for defense Yesterday morning, but the
refused to entertain il.