Omaha daily bee., 1890-05-20
GRANDPA BURRUS RELEASED.
The Supreme Court Directs the Discharge Of
the Prisoner.
BREWERS GALL A CONVENTION.
Methods for Meeting Their Enemies
TO be Observation-Disclosures OF the
Senate Committee on Finance
Very Cautious.
WASHINGTON BUREAU THE OMAHA BEE,
5l3 FOURTEENTH STREET,
WAsnINGroN, ID. c., MAY 10. J

noon rendered the decision of the supreme
court in the Burrus habeas corpus case from
Omaha, which has been pending for several
months.
The supreme court directs the discharge of
the prisoner.
'This is all application by Thomas f. Bur.
rus to this court in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction for writ of habeas corpus to re-
lieve him from the custody and unlawful inn
prisonment, as he declares, in which he is
held by Brad ID. Slaughter, United States
marshal of the district of Nebraska in the
Jail at Omaha, in said state, by virtue of an
order of the district court of the United States
for that district" is the way Justice Miller's
decision begins. The case is then reviewed
in the way in which it is familiar in Nebraska.
Justice Miller says that the extent of the
authority of the courts Of the United States
to use the writ of habeas corpus as means of
releasing person held in unlawful custody
has always been clouded with more or less
doubt and uncertainty. He then quotes the
fourteenth section of the act establishing the
judicial system Of the United States relating
to writs of habeas corpus, and concludes that
inasmuch as the offense of Burrus was not
against the federal laws the authority of the
federal supreme court cannot be invoked
for his release. He holds that in this case
there was no pretense that the child was re-
strained of its liberty, or that the grandfather
withheld it from the possession or control of
the father under or by virtue of any authority
of the United States, or that his posses
the constitution or any law or treaty of the
United States. The whole subject of the
domestic relations of husband and wife,
parent or child, belongs to the laws of the
tntn nt tn lntxr of thD Init bod
States, as to the right to the control and pos
session of the child as it is contested by its
father and its grandfather. 1t is one in
regard to which neither the congress of the
United States nor any authority of the
United States has any special jurisdiction.
Whether the one or the other is sentitled to
the provision does not depend upon any act of
congress, or any treaty of the United States
or its constitution Whether the diverse
citizenship of the parties contesting this
right to the custody of the child could in the
courts of the United States give jurisdiction
to the circuit and district courts to determine
the question has never been de-
sary to decide it in this case,
for the order for violation of
which the prisoner is imprisoned for con-
tempt is not a judgment of the circuit court
of the United States but Judgment of the
district court of the same district. There is
apparently studied effort in the record to
treat the proceedings as one in the district
court of the United States for Nebraska and
also as one before the judge of that court,
but the supreme court apprehends that it
must be considered for what it is worth, as
the Judgment of the district court, both the
order for the delivery of the child to its
father and the order for the Imprisonment
of the present petitioner for contempt being
made in that court. The jurisdiction of that
court is not founded upon the citizenship of
the parties and although the original petition
of Miller, the father of the child, was amended
after the judgment was rendered so as
to show that he was citizen of Ohio and
that the defendants, Burrus and wife, were
citizens of Nebraska, it is not perceived how
that averment aids the party in the present
case, for the district courts of the United
States have not jurisdiction by reason of the
citizenship of the parties. If, therefore, there
was no other grounds of jurisdiction of that
court in the habcas corpus case by which the
child was delivered to its father it was en-
tirely without jurisdiction.
"Ihe whole proceeding before the district
judges was 'coram non judice' and void, and
the attempt to enforce the judgment by at
tachment and imprisonment of Burus for
contempt of that order was equally void The
prisoner is therefore entitled to his dis
chargcn
Justice Brewer dissents.
THE BREWERS CALL.
The brewers of the country are to meet
here this week to use their influence upon
congress In their call, which is signed by
IllcS LcltuS, plCSlutub, JdultS
vice president; II. b. Scharmann, vice presi-
dent; Joseph Liebmann, treasurer, and Rich
ard Katzelmayer, secretary, they say:
1--WE are forcibly convinced by all that has
occurred within the past year that our enc
mics, who, during the last four or five years,
have suffered SO many defeats at
the polls, now strenuously seek to
cripple our industry by unfriendly
state and national legislation. In the con-
gress of the United States, as well as in the
lpDiSlntIIpS of states nttpmntS
being made to place all manner of obstruc-
tions agBinst the growth of our business. In
creased duties upon some raw materials and
a separate tax on Others regulations relating
to the method of brewing prohibiting the use
of some most necessary materials, inyestiga-
tion of the business by partisan commissions,
official inspection OF breweries at the
brewers expense, limitation OF the
n few of the endeavors of our enemies to
inure our interests. In view of this sudden
change in the tactics of our enemies by which
they seek TO succeed i'll that which they
could not bring about through the ballot
box, it behooves each and every one con-
nected with our industry orinterested therein
to attend our next convention. We there
fore urge upon you the necessity of assisting
us in every possible manner but principally
by your counsel and earnest and active assis-
tance in carrying out the resolutions and
regulations which must be adopted
VERY CAUTIOUS.
Not a single republican member Of the
senate committee ON finance will give either
an individual or collective opinion as to what
will be done with the Mckinley tariff bill
when it goes TO the committee this week
Senators Allison of Iowa and Aldrich of
Rhode Island were the most prominent in
the preparation of the senate tariff bill two
years ago and will undoubtedly have more
to do with the action which will be taken
upon the Mckinley bill than any other
members of the senate committee on finance.
When your correspondent today asked
Senator Allison whether the committee was
likely to report the bill prepared by the
senate two years ago as a substitute for the
Mckinley bill, he said II would not like to
express an opinion on this, ask me that
question at the end of the week and 1 may
be in position TO give you some ihforma-
tion.n
"Do you think a tariff bill will become
law before the close Of this sessionP
ayes, l don
''Is it true that the Mckinley bill does not
represent the position of the senator
you are asking me very pertinent ques-
tions, replied the senator, smilingly, land
inasmuch as we have not had even an in
formal conference Of the committee, and
as l have had no positive expression as to
the provisions of the Mckinley bill in COM