36 FEDERAL REPORTER.
tition for a habeas corpus to release a prisoner conhned in a peni-
tentiary of West Virginia, under sentence of the circuit court for the
district of Louisiana. The sentence recited the fact that it had been
in due form determined and ascertained that there was no peniten-
tiary within the district of Louisiana, suitable for the confinement of
persons convicted of crime in the circuit court of the United States,
and that the attorney general had designated the penitentiary at
Moundsville, in West Virginia, as the place of conhnement of all
persons sentenced by the circuit court of the United States in the dis-
t1·ict of Louisiana. The court held that such Ending was conclusive,
and could not be reviewed upon petition for a habeas corpus. It was
further held to be no objection tothe validity of the order that the
state had not given its consent to the use of this penitentiary as a
place of confinement of a convicted offender against the laws of the
United States. Nothing else was decided in the case. There is noth-
ing in the opinion of the court showing or tending to show that the
recital in the sentence was necessary to its validity. ` Upon the con-
trary, it was said (page 4-03) that "no action of the courts was required.
A notification to the courts was, therefore, only necessary for the pur-
pose of influencing their conduct in the future. A sentence in this
case for imprisonment in a state penitentiary would not have been
` void, but it might not.have prevented the attorney general, acting
under the statute, from directing a removal of the convict to some
penitentiary outside of the state."
The question is whether, conceding the power to commit a pris-
oner to a penitentiary in another state, the judgment of the court
should recite the fact that the conditions precedent to the exercise of
such power existed. That the court was bound to {ind that the at-
torney general had designated the Detroit House of Correction as the
_ proper place for the confinement of prisoners from the district court
of Arkansas may be assumed; but it does not follow that the court
is bound in every case to set forth this fact in its sentence. Sup-
pose, for example, the superintendent of the House of Correction were
sued for false imprisonment in this case, would it be necessary for
him to show, beyond the conviction of a court of competent jurisdic-
tion, that the attorney general had designated his penitentiary as a
place for the confinement of prisoners? I think not. This court is
bound to presume that the committing court acted within the law.
To entitle a party to relief upon habeas corpus there must appear a
want of jurisdiction in the committing court over the person, or the
cause, or some other matter, rendering its proceedings void. Ex
parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 375.
Whenever it appears that the court has obtained jurisdiction of
the person and the cause, the maxim, omrria prcesumurttur rite esse acta,
applies with full force. Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19; 2 Phil. Ev.
159 et seq.; Com. v. Botkom, 3 Pick. 281; State of Ohio v. Hinclmzarz,