The Robesonian. [volume] (Lumberton, N.C.) 1870-current, 1908-04-02

| y
Justice Harlan again deliveripg
the opinion of the court.
The bill was filed, and Judg,
Pritchard took general jurisdic
tion, as was his duty under tht
law. Pending the inquiry, h.
issued al il junction against th'
enforcement of the reduced
rates. We shall not discuss tbs
issuance of this Injunction, furtf
er than to say, at most, it could
only be erroneous, but there is
wide difference between an erro-
ne0us order made in properly
constituted cause. and a jurisdic
tional defect. A defect of jaris
dictiOn can be set up anywhere
and everywhere, and ell orders
made where this exists are ab
sOlutely void; while an erroneous
order, made 10 a properly con-
stituted cause, must be obeyed,
and should be respected until re-
versed on appeal. Judge Pritch
ard had Jurisdiction of the main
cause, and the orders made by
him therein were, therefore,
binding till set aside by the Ap-
pellate Court.
The State courts, only of CO.
ordinate jurisdiction, ,disregarded
his rulings, and Woods was SEN
fenced to imprisonment, to work
on the chain gang, by an inferior
court, a police justice of Ashe-
vile, for no other reason than
that he had obeyed the orders OF
court of competent Jurisdiction.
! In ordering Woods release on
, habeas corpus, Judge Pritcbard
was acting we'll within his rights
, and powers, and the Supreme
, Court in approving his Judgment
but carried out the law as it long
, has been declared. Certainly as
-, We see it, noneW law is to be
found in Judge Peckham's opin-
= ion.
!, In ex parte Royall, decided in
E 1886, III U. S. S., Judge Har-
o Ian, speaking for the court. it is
= held that where a person is in
custody under process from a
State courtof original jurisdic-
; tion for an alleged ofense against
the laws of the State, and it is
+ claimed that his restraint is in
violation of the constitution of
, the United States, the Circuit
, Court has discretion to dis
; charge him in advance Of his trial
in the State court.
In ex parte Marlborough, 10
U. S. S., decided in 1884, it is
=. held that the Federal courts
3 have the amplest power to re-
store to liberty any person with
D in their jurisdiction, held in Gus
D tody by whatever authority in
violation of the constitution, and
e that the statute (habeas corpus,
e evidently contemplated that
q cases might arise when the
|. power thus conveyed should be
h exercised during the progress o.
J. proceedings instituted against
d petitioner in a State court, OF
,. account of the very matter to b.
;, determined on the hearing O
,r writ of habeas corpus.
! In ex parte Siebold, 100 .. S
4 S.. decided in 1880, it is hell
~ that a prisoner can be dischare
ed by Federal Court after cor
, viction in State court, if tn
~ law under which he was convict
.t ed should be held by Feders
r. judge to be repugnant to tn
constitution.
=. Thus It will be seen it has lon
+o been declared and recognized q
Of law that Federal Judge can di
charge on habeus corpus pris
Il oner, before his trial by a Stat
~ court, during the progress I
. his trial in such court, and afte
j., his conviction, if the juds
m should be of opinion that tt
H., State law under which the pri
- oner was indicted and convicte
,to was violative of the Federal CO
ru stitLtion. -
,rt Blame not Judge Pritchar
,r then, but rather John Marsha
OF
.ad the great Virginian, who in thi
~ ty-tive opinions delivered I
vol tween 1901 and 1885 claimed a
,od exercised this power, and firm
3D. imbedded it in our jurispr
-, dence.
o+o The wise man is he who Sc
actual conditions, and cover
i'm himself accordingly Change
inc to be seen everywhere, and prt
- ably no more radical changes a