32 rmnmnsn Bmrozvrmn.
habeas corpus from the superior court, to which he made the return
hereinbefore set out, stating that he held Bayley for the purpose of
conveying him to Oregon, under and in pursuance of the laws of the
United States, by virtue of the commission from the governor of Ore-
gon, and the warrant of arrest of the governor of California, and ar-
rest under it, annexing thereto copies of said documents, and exhib-
itingthe originals, and respectfully declined to produce the body of
Bayley on the expressed ground that, it appearing to the court that
Bayley was in custody under the laws of the United States, the court
had no jurisdiction to proceed further, or to require him to produce
the body of said prisoner.
The court took a different view on this point, adjudged petitioner
to be guilty of contempt in declining to produce the body of Bayley,
and to be imprisoned until he should comply with the commands of
the writ in this particular. If the court, after being informed of the
cause of restraint, had jurisdiction and authority to proceed further,
and compel the production of the body of Bayley, notwithstanding
the facts shown, then the judgment for contempt is lawful, and peti-
tioner must be remanded; but if it had no authority to proceed and
compel the p1·oduction of the body of Bayley, then it had no power to
punish petitioner for contempt, and he could not be in contempt in
not producing him, and the authority of the court to proceed is the
question to be determined. As we understand the decisions, this
very question has been distinctly determined by the supreme court
of the United States, under circumstances that compelled the most
deliberate and mature consideration, in the cases of Ablemau v. Booth
and U. S. v. Booth, 21 How. 507. In the first case, Booth had been
arrested for an offense against the laws of the United States, and
held to answer by a court commissioner, and committed to the cus-
tody of the marshal of the district. A justice of the supreme court
of Wisconsin discharged Booth from custody on habeas corpus, on the
ground that the act under which Booth was held was unconstitutional
and void, and his action was affirmed by the state supreme court.
Booth was then indicted and tried, and convicted in the United States
district court for the district of Wisconsin, and sentenced to imprison-
ment, whereupon the same justice of the supreme court of the state
U discharged him again on habeas corpus, on the same grounds as before;
which action was also affirmed by the supreme court of the state.
This action of the justice of the supreme court, and of the supreme
court of the state, was reversed by the supreme court of_the United
- States, upon the ground that the court and justice were wholly without
jurisdiction to consider these matters. So earnest was the supreme
court of Wisconsin in its determination to maintain its authority
that it even disobeyed the writ of the United States supreme court,
commanding it to send up its record, and peremptorily ordered its
clerk not to send a transcript of the record, which order was obeyed;