The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-12-09
POINT FOR PRISONERS
Federal Conviets Cannot Be
Held for RENTED Time
The Weidner Habeas
Corps.
spectal to the jersey stu Neses.


: TRENTON, Dec. 8, 1s96.-Justice Van
Syckel rendered an opinion in the Supreme
Count establishing an important precedent
of the States prisoners. It was in the
Weidner habeas corpus proceedings
Weidner was sentenced in 1882 from Cape
May County for breaking and entering.
He was sentenced to seven years and was
released in 1855. having received a COM
mutation for good behavior, under sec
lions 10 and II of the State prison act.
Weidner was convicted in the United
States District Court in 1892 of passing
spurious coin and sentenced to State
prison for three years and to pay a fine
of $1,000. On November Is past. Weidner's
three years having expired. Commissioner
Scott, on application Of counsel, dis
charged him, renting the fine. The State
prison authorities. however, held him to
serve the 800 days RENTED to him on his
first sentence for good behavior.
A writ of habeas corpus was obtained
from Justice Van Syckel by Messrs. Cross
ley & Montgomery, and the case was SUBJ
mitted on briefs.
On behalf of the State Acknowledgement
Stockton held fhat Weidner's detention
was legal under section u of the act
which is to the effect that any convict of
the prison who has p~artaken of the Glenn
ency of sections 10 and II Of the act, and
again sentenced to the State prison, he
shall, In addition 20 his sentence, be re-
quired to serve the number of days re-
mitted to him on his previous sentence.
Messrs. Croeeaey G. Montgomery contend
ed that this construction of the act APP
piled only TO the convictions by courts of
this State. They claimed this view was
upheld by section 10 of said act, which
provides that all convictions and sentences
made by any court in this State shall be
construed to be subject to the previous
section. THE second sentence was not pro-
nounced by a court of this State, but by
the United States court.
1.-THE prisoner is before me-" says JUS
tice Van Syckel, ION habeas corpus, and
the Question IS whether he is entitled to
be discharged from custody.
1T must be conceded the United States
Government may in respect to prisoners
convicted In the Federal court, adopt by
statute the provisions and regulations OF
our State statutes regarding h incar-
ceration of prisoners, and inaSmuch as
the Sheriff and keeper of every jail IS
commanded to receive all prisoners COM
mitted to the authority of the laws of the
United States, and them safely to keep
until discharged by due course of the
laws of the United States, ii is the duty
of the keeper of the prison to detain such
prisoners according to the exigency OF the
Federal statutes until discharged by the
United States. Therefore. If the first con-
viction and sentence of the prisoner Weld
ner had been in the Federal court and the
second conviction and sentence had been
also in the Federal court there can be no
1o.,h that h. ur0r1l he ra0Itircd m S6rva
out the days RENTED Under the first SEN
tence, If the Federal statute had adopted
the provision of the twelfth section of
our State prison act before recited. Un-
troll of the entire subject matter. Whether
the Federal statutes should receive such
construction 1t is not necessary to decide
as the first conviction of Weidner was IN
our State court and not in the Federal
court.
Il think 1t cannot be successfully con-
troverted that the Federal Congress Is
without power to add to or diminish the
punishment imposed by our State govern
ment. 1t is the exclusive right of the
State to regulate that subject. We must
therefore look at the State law alone to
settle the question submitted IN TINS case.
The prisoner cannot be deprived OF a right
he has under a State iaw by an adverse
act of Congress in respect to a matter
over which the State has exclusive 1nris-
diction-
aIf the State law can be read so that q
conviction and sentence by the Federal
court shall have the same effect as a con-
viction and sentence by the state court
then the prisoner is without remedy; but
in favor of liberty a strict construction
should be adhered to. and it should clear
ly appear that the State Legislature mas
declared that a sentence by the Feueral
court shall deprive a prisoner of the time
RENTED under a prior sentence by the
state court. / am unable, in cur legsSla-
ton, to find any provision which Will rea-
sonably bear such an interpretation.