34 b FEDERAL REPORTER-
Aigein: t “ .
“ Questions of this kind must always depend upon the constitution and
laws of therUnited States, and not of e. ’ste.te. The constitution was not
formed merely to guard the states against danger from foreign nations, but
mainly to secure union and harmony at home; for if this object could be at-
tained, there would be but little danger from abroad, and to accomplish this
purpose it was felt by the statesmen who framed the constitution, and by
the people who adopted it, that it was necessary that many of the rights of
sovereignty, which the states then possessed, should be ceded to the general
government, and that, in the sphere of action assigned to it, it should be
supreme and strong enough to execute its own laws by its own tribunals.
without interruption from a state or from state authorities. And it was
evident that anything short of this would be inadequate to the mein objects
for which the government was established; and that local interest, local pes-
sions or prejudices. incited and fostered by individuals for sinister purposes,
would lead to acts of aggression and injustice, by one state upon the rights of
another, which would ultimately terminate in violence and force, unless there
was a. common arbiter between them, armed with power enough to protect
. and guard the rights of all, by appropriate laws, to be carried into execution
peacefully by its judicial tribunals.? 21 How. 516, 517.
After showing the relation of the state and ne.tiona.1“ courts to each
other, and to the laws of theUnited States passed within the scope of
the powers of the national government, the court, in language so clear
and precise that it can not well be misunderstood, lays down the rule
directly applicable to this case, as follows:
. "We do not question the authority of the state court, or judge, who is
authorized by the laws of the state to issue the writof habeas corpus, to issue
it iu any case where the party is imprisoned within its territorial limits,
provided it does not appear, when the application is made, that the person
imprisoned is in custody under authority ofthe United States. The court, or
judge, has a, right to inquire, in this mode of proceeding, for what cause, and
and by what authority, the prisoner is confined within the territorial limits
of the state sovereignty. And it is the duty of the marshal, or other person
having the custody of the prisoner, to make known to the judge or court, by
a proper return, the authority by which he holds him in custody. This right
to inquire by process of habeas corpus, and the duty of the officer to make 2.
return, grows, necessarily, out of the complex character of our government,
and the existence of two distinct and separate sovereignties within the same
territorial space, each of them restricted in its powers, and each, within its
sphere of action, prescribed by the constitution of the United States, inde—
pendant of the other. ·But, after the return is made, and the state judge or
court judicially anprised that the party is in custody under the authority of
the United States, they can proceed no further. 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 sovereign-
ties. He is then within the dominion and exclusive jurisdiction of the
United States. If he has committed an offense against; their laws, their
tribunals alone can punish him. Lf he is wrongfully imprisoned, their ju-
dicial tribunals can release him and aford him redress. And although, as
we heve said, it is the duty of the miirshal, or other person holding him, to
nuke known, by a. proper return, the authority under which he demi ns him, it
is at the same time imperatioety his duty to obey the process ofthe United
States, to hold the prisoner in custody under it, and to refuse obedience to