Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1888-04-22

citizens Of one State or another, between
one State and the citizens Of another, and
the rights of property, liberty or life all
belong exclusively to the judiciary pro-
vided for in Article III. of the National
Constitution. In Section of Article ~.
it guarantees each State against inva-
sion.n
Now, I respectfully submit that the
facts stated above now constitute an Sin
vasion." If twenty-eight armed men,
under an officer of another State, arresting
our citizens, to have them answer to the
laws of an invading force, Is not an invs,
sion, why would thousand or any other
number IF men 50 acting be an invasion?
II they have the right to take and carry
from the State of West Virginia nine of her
citizens, why have they not the right to
CARRY AWAY A THOUSAND,
or even the whole population Of that State
to their prisons, If they had the power ?
If strong State can thus decimate
weaker one, how can that weaker one per-
form her duty TO the General Government,
or even maintain her own? To enable his
State to maintain itself and carry ON the
functions Of government il is necessary
that Governor Wilson should have his citi-
zens secure in their citizenship, quieted in
their domiciles md confident In the sancti-
ty of the laws of their State and of the
United States. II these things are to be
allowed no man, woman or child In any
State can know ut what moment he or she
may be captured and carried from home to
to foreign jurisdiction.
The State has surrendered her power to
recapture these men to the General Gov
eminent, and therefore respectfully sub
nit that it becomes the duty of that Gov
ernment to do through its courts in this
case what the State would otherwise do
through its armies, and upon this point l
cite your honors to Sd Mclean, 127-
Smiths case.
That the Governor of q State has the
right to make this application refer to
the wsll-known rule of the common law.
That in the cases of orphans and those
of general interest affecting the public it is
the duty of the Crown as ',pater pdtria' to
sue out writs of hdbeds corpus and its solic-
itor to prosecute them. (Dow's Case, 18th
Penn.
That it was intended that the Federal
Courts should have the power, in protect
ing the liberty and lives of the citizens Of
the different States, to supervise and set
aside the DEGREES of State Courts and hber-
ate men held under them as well as to dis
regard acts of State Legislatures, refer to
Articles v, vi, viii.
REGRETS OF CITIZENSHIP.
The relator, Plysnt Mahon, claims that
under Article iv, Section 2, he was guaran-
teed all the privileges and immunities of
citizens of the several States, aud he as
serts that the dearest Of all those "priVil-
leges and immunities" was the right to
enjoy his domicile unmolested and to ,ap-
pesl to the Courts and laws of his State
and Judgment Of his peers for protection.
These have been denied him.
He again asserts that the second clause
of that same section, after making that
guarantee, provided the only means by
which he could be deprived of these
benefits, and that that is the ouly ''dut
process OF law" by which he could be SC
deprived.
He asserts that article guarantees th1
he shall not 'be deprived Of life, Liberty
or property without due process of law"
and he claims that his confinement is
such.
Again, he asserts that the state of Ken
lucky, in enforcing what she claims to De
one of her laws, in his case is violating |
the Fourteenth Amendment to the ON
stitution, which declares that mo slate |
shall make or enforce any law which slall
abridgs the privileges or immunitie OF
citizens of the United States" AMI he
claims that this action on the part OF the
said state of Kentucky does "abrid9 hjl
privileges and immunities.
Being thus captured contrary to th' pro-
visions of the Constitution and hving
rights hereunder, he submits that the
Federal courts have jurisdiction o his
case aud should right his wrong. IL that
/ refer to Riuscher's case, 4O7, and beer's
case, 436, 119 United States Reports.
KENTUCKY's CLAIM.
But the State of Kentucky, admitting
the wrongful capture and violation oi the
relator's, Plyant Mahone's constitutional
rights, claims that she was no party tire
to, and not responsible therefor. Thispo-
sition is untenable. The taking nd
holding was one continuous act by he
same officers Of the State of Kentucy,
and was her act for the purpoes
of this case. The act of Phillips in CO.
turing and of Kline in locking him up N
iail without warrant or mittimus, wee
both the wrongful acts of the State of Kel
lucky (see Cooley's Constitutional Limits
tions, page }; and being thus carried ou'
of their own Jurisdiction into the jurisdicl
tion of the State of Kentucky by fraud and
force ofarms, and held under arrest, while
so held no process could be legally served
upon him or become 'due process Of law"
nor could the State of Kentucky or the
Courts thereof acquire any rights or get
any jurisdiction by this wrong.
Upon this point refer to 1S Penn. 81;
~ Pickering 270, and cases therein cited,
and to 18th American Decisions 723, and
note.
In view of all of which i respectfully
submit that the relator has been captured
and is now detained, in violation of his
constitutional rights as citizen Of the
State of West Virginia and Of the United
States, and that the State of West Virginia
has been invaded and deprived of the use,
services, and enjoyment of her subjects in
violation of the Constitution of the United
States of America
EUsTACE GIBSON,
0fCoGasei for Appelldnt.