The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-01-07

| ferior Courts as Congress may. from time
| 70 time, order and establish; and, Sec
| to all cases in law and equity arising
| under this Constitution, THE LAWS OF
| THE UNITED STATES, and treaties
| made, which shall be made, under their
| authority. Under the authority thus
| conferred Congress has established GER
tain inferior Courts, but none Yet in
| these Islands. This Court is not a
| Court OF the United States. See Republic
| VS.. Edwards, NJ, Haw. 81.
one evil which the trainers Of the
| avoid by leaving il solely TO United States
| Courts to interpret and enforce United
| States laws. was the giving of differing
| or antason!stic interpretations TO the
| same law intended to apply in all States
| alike by the Courts of different States.
which would cause confusion and uncer-
| tainty in the application of such law and
| perhaps lead 20 disagreeInents or even TO
| a breach of the peace between different
| States. The present seems to me to be a
| case falling with the reasons for the jur-
| isdictional provision in the Constitution.
The Courts of the various States might
| easily hold and lay down conflicting views
| as to how the statutes now in question
| ought TO be construed.
In Alderman Us. Booth and United States
VS. Booth, u Howard 0O6 a judge of the
Supreme Court of Wisconsin in the first
of those two cases of habeaS corpus
claimed and exercised the right to super
wise and annul the proceedings of Com
missioner of the United States, and to
discharge a prisoner, who had been COM
mitted by the Commissioner Tor Of
Tense against the laws of this Omitted
States Government and this exercise of
power by the Judge was afterwards sane
toned and affirmed by the Supreme Court
of the State In the second case the
State Court went a step further and
claimed and exercised jurisdiction over
the proceedings and judgment of a Dis
trct Court of the United States, and up
on summary and collateral proceeding,
by habeas corpus, set aside and annulled
its judgment, and discharged a prisoner
who had been tried and found guilty of
an offenSe against the laws of the United
States, and sentenced to imprisonment by
the District Court In the decision
which is an elaborate and well-considered
one, the Supreme Court of the United
States says: These propositions are new
in the Jurisprudence of the United States,
as well as of the States and the suprem-
acy of the State Courts over the Courts
of the United States, In cases arising
United States, is now for the first time
asserted and acted upon in the Supreme
IF the judicial power exercised in this
instance has been reserved to the States
no offense against the laws of the United
States can be punished by their own
Courts, without the permission and ac-
cording to the judgment of the Courts of
the State in which the party happens to
be imprisoned; for if the Supreme Court
of Wisconsin possessed the power it has
exercised in relation to offences against
the act of Congress in question, it neceS
sarily follows that they must have the
same judicial authority in relation to any
other power of the United States; and
consequently, their supervising and con-
trolling power would embrace the GRIM
inal code of the United States, and eX
tend to offences against the revenue laws,
or any other law intended to guard the
different departments of the General Gov
eminent from fraud or violence. And 1t
would embrace all crimes, from the high
est to the lowest; including felonies.
which are punished with death, we'll
as misdemeanors, which are punished by
Imprisonment And, moreover, if the pow
er is possessed by the Supreme Court of
Wisconsin, it must belong equally TO
every other State in the Union, when the
and it is very certain that the State
Courts would not always agree in opin-
ion and it would often happen, that an
act which was admitted to be an offense
and justly punished, in one State, would
be regarded as innocent, and indeed as
praiSeworthY, in another.
There can be no such thing as judicial
authority, unless it is conferred by a
Government or sovereignty; and if the
the jurisdiction they claim, they must de-
rive it either from the United States or
State 1t certainly has not been conferred
on them by the United States: and it is
equally clear it was not in the power OF
the State to confer it, even if it had at
tempted TO do so; for no State can auth
orize one of its Judges or Courts to eXer-
else judicial power, by habeas corpus or
otherwise, within the jurisdiction of an
other and Independent Government. And
although the State of Wisconsin is SOW
ereign within its territorial limits to
certain 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 are eXer-
cised within the same territorial limits,
are yet separate and distinct. sovereign
ties, acting separately and independently
of each other, within their respective
spheres. And the sphere of action apprO-
priated to the United States is as far be-
yond the reach of the judicial process is
sued by State Judge or a State Court,
rI,A .f icin no1 nv
landmarks and monuments visible to the
eye. And the State of Wisconsin had no
more power to authorize these proceed
ings of it's Judges and Courts, than it
would have had if the prisoner had been
confined in Michigan, or in any other
State of the Union for an offence against
the laws of the State in which he was i'm
priSoned.
I'VE do not question the authority Of
State Court, or Judge, who is authorized
by the laws of the State to issue the
writ of habeaS corpus to issue it in any
case where the party is imprisoned with
in it's territorial limits, provided it does
that the person imprisoned is in custody
under the authority of the United States.
The Court or Judge has right to inquire,
in this mode of proceeding, for what
cause and by what authority the prisoner
is confined within the territorial limits of
the State sovereignty. And it is the duty
of the Marshal. other person having
the custody of the prisoner, to make
known to the Judge or Court, by a proper
return, the authority Dy winch ne holuS
him in custody. This right to inquire by
process of habeas corpus, and the duty of
the officer to make the return, grows nee
essarily out of the complex character of
our Government, and the existence of two
distinct and separate SOVereigntleS with
in the same territorial space, each of
them restricted in its powers, and each
within it's sphere of action. prescribed by
the Constitution of the United States, in
dependent of the other. But after the re-
turn is made. and the State Judge or
Court judicially appriZed that the party is
in custody under the authority of the
United States, they can proceed no fur
Their They then know that the prisoner
is within the dominion and jurisdiction of
another Government, and that neither
the writ of habeas corpus, nor any other
process issued under State authority, can
pass over the line of division between the
two sovereignties. He is then within the
dominion and exclusive jurisdiction of the
United States. If he has committed an
offence against their laws. their tribunals
81 nlnish him If be is wrong