The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-01-16


States be punished by their Courts without the
mission and according the Judgment of the Courts of the
in which the party happens be prsoned; for if the
Supreme Court of Wisconsin possessed the power has
ced in relation oten against the Act of Congress in
ton necessarily follows that they have the judicial
authority relation any other power of the United States
and consequently, their supervising and controlling power
would embrace the criminal code Of the United States and
tend oense against the laws, any other law
intended guard the different departments the General
Government from fraud violence And it would embrace
all crimes from the highest the lowest; including feonies
which punished with death well misdemeanor which
punished by imprisonment And moreover if the power
possessed by the Supreme Court Wisconsin, belong
equally every other State in the Union when the
within its territorial limits and very certain that the State
Courts would always agree opinion; and it would often
happen, that which admitted be oense and
Justly punished in State would be regarded
and indeed praisewortly, in another x
There be thing judicial authority, unless it
is conferred by Government soveregnty and if the judges
and Courts Of Wisconsin possess the jurisdiction they claim,
they derive either the United States the State
certainly has been conferred them by the United
States; and is equally clear in the power of the
State confer it, if it had attempted to do so; for
authorize its judges Courts judi
cal power by habeas corpus otherwise within the urisdc
ton of another and independent And although
Wisconsin sovereign within its territorial limits
extent, yet that sovereignty is limited and restricted
by the Constitution of the United States And the powers of
the General Government and of the State although both exist
and exercised within the territorial limits yet
separate and distinct sovereignte acting separately and indie
pendeny of each other within their respective spheres And
the sphere of appropriated the United States far
beyond the reach of the judicial issued by State judge
a Court if the line of division traced by land
and visible the eye And the State of
had power authorize these proceedings
of its judges and Courts than would have had if the prisoner
Michigan, any other State of the
Union ofense against the laws of the State in which
he imprisoned. = =
question the authority of State Court, judge,
who authorized by the laws of the State issue the writ of
habeas corpus issue in any where the party mps
within territorial limits provided does appear,
when the application made that the person imprisoned
in custody under the authority of the United States The
judge has right inquire, in this mode of proceedings for
what and by what authority the confined with
in the territorial limits of the State sovereignty And the
duty of the marshal other person having the custody of the
prisoner make known the judge court by proper
return the authority by which he holds him in custody This
right inquire by process of habeas corpus and the duty of
the officer make the return grows necessarily of the
complex Government and the existence of
distinct and separate overenties within the territorial
space, each of them restricted in its powers and each within
sphere action prescribed by the Constitution of the Uni
ted States independent of the other But after the return is
made, and the State Judge uday appraised that the
party custody under the authority of the United States
they proceed further They then know that the prisoner
within the dominion and jurisdiction of another government
and that neither the habeas corpus other
issued under State authority pass the line of
division between the soveregnes He is then within the
dominion and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States If
he has committed oene against their laws, their tribunals
alone punish him. If he wrongtuly imprisoned their
judicial tribunals release him and afford him redress And
although have said it is the duty of the marshal other
person holding him. known by proper return the
authority under which him, it the time
mperatvey his duty obey the of the United States
hold the prisoner in custody under it, and refuse obedience
to the mandate process of any other Government And
consequently it his duty take the prisoner suffer
10 he