New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-05-15

question whether the petitioners detention was IN
violation of Constitution, laws treaties, of the
United States being examined When Mchahe
applied for the writ of habeas corpus he was an
inmate OF Sing Sing. and his appeal to the General
Term OF the Supreme Court. far as the statutes
of New,-York are concerned did not prevent his be-
ing committed to that prison in execution of the
sentence pronounced against him. and his committai
TO prison pending appeal 70 higher court or the
State was In conformity with the laws OF New-fork
Respecting the contention that these statutory
regulations of the State repugnant to Section
2 of Article " OF the Constitution OF the United
States which provides that 1.-The citizens of each
State shall be entitled to al privileges and inmu-
mites OF citizens In the several States Justice
Harlan says: THE Constitution of the United States
does not make the privileges and lmmunities en-
joyed by the citizens Of one State under the Con-
stitutlon and laws Of that State the measure OF
privileges and lmmuntlcs to be enjoyed as Of right.
by citizen of another State under It's Constitution
ard laws
The right OF appeal maybe accorded by the state
to the accused such terms as It may deem proper
but the review by appellate court of the maj
judgment in criminal case was not az common
law. and Is not now a necessary element Of due
process of law.
The point made by counsel for NcKane That
A suspension OF proceedings In the State court where
II occurs under the circumstances stated In sec
ton 7G8 Of the Revised Statutes Of the United
sonable doubt given BY a State Judge under The
State law after the execution Of the jud yment OF
conviction has commenced said Justice Harlan.
cannot 10 sustained
Poughkeepsle. y. V. May lin the General 1'rm
Of the Supreme Cour. to-day John Y. Mckane's ap-
pea! from the sentence Of Justice BARNARD Of 500
fine and thirty days imprisonment for contempt OF
court was dismissed. The argument IN Mckane's
appeal from the sentence to six years imprisonment
IN Sing Sing will b., heard as soon IA judge IL
selected to sit In place OF Judge Cullen VINO VIII
net hear the appeal because he denied the motion
for a STAY Of the original sentence. The argument
can probably be heard tomorrow.
Justice Brown in his decision. says:
IF the Supreme Court had jurisdiction Of the sub
iect matter OF the action lrough; against the appel
lan:s. and II Justice barnard had jurisdiction 10
grant preliminary Injunction for d!sohoying or re
ss,lng which the appellants have been convicted
that order must BE- treated 4 valid and bin Ling
order OF the court end suca was to be until 1t
revoked by subsequent order made IN Inc same
! action" ,
Justice Brown further says that. the court having
Jurisdiction OF the subject matter Qf me acti2,
and the Justice jurisdiction consider and decide
the application OF the temporary order. II was the
duty o. the appellants to obey It, and dsob dlphce
or resistance to ~ mandate was an offence pnish
able Il criminal contempt. In the case OF criminal
CONTEMPT Justice Bro"n n9' nJt I 4renrs
no cement OF persona! INJURY II IS dTcsttu NJ
| the Jig lily and the authority Of ~ curt aione
| Hence in proceedings to prosecute such an act
the Court VIII look only at the question OF DOVER
and II there was jurisdiction 70 grant the orir X
| dsobey Il fer the purposr ~ yindc9ting - own
power and maintaining us own dignty, and lcaviaS
private RIGHTS 20 be relr 'Ssei in tn,
! orderly manner provided for by the ru."s of prac-
/ tice.
| In closing. Justice Brown refers 10 the fact that
| dssensicas which aDp'ar IN The opinions n c2s.s
! ~ civil Contempt I'm reference TO the plalntn =
cause of.acon IRE not inconsistent with or opposed
to The ruie applied in cases OF criminal contempt.
| and IN the latter cass the Oa'y inquiry pertinent
to the nature az The alleged contemptuous act is:
Was the order which has been disobsyed or resisted
| made by a court or oalcer having power to
| make Il?
| I'VE are NOT. therof re. permitted upon this
appeal to review the decision OF Justice Barnard in
| Granting the preliminary Injunction. His decision
Involves the determination Of every question nccss-
| sary support thr order and IN making Il he was
exercising the jurisdiction conferred upon him bY
the Constitution and VS. or tho State. HIS order
| was valid exercise 81 judcl. power. and while
the question whether such action &c waS brought
agalns, the appellants could be maintained is open
20 grave doubt that question Is not now before the
! Court and canao' b. determined. Disobedence or
resistance to the order WAS criminal conf 'mpt.
the conclusions % the Special Term upon the
facts have annie support I'm H." evidence. and the
! orders Appealed from are affirmed with costs"