· zu amiaoss. ‘ · 35 i
the mandate or process of any other government. And, consequently, it is ,
his duty not to take the prisoner, nor sufer him to be taken, before a state
judge or court upon a habeas corpus issued under state authority. No state
judge or court after they are judicially informed that the party is tmpria
oned under the authority of the United States, has any right to interfere with
him, or to require him to be brought before them. And if the authorityof
a state, in the form of judicial process, or otherwise, should attempt tocon- ,
trol the marshal, or other authorized ojicer or agent of the United States, in _
any respect, in the custody of his prisoner, it would be his duty to resist it,
and to call to his aid any force that might be necessary to maintain the
authority of law against illegal interference. No judicial process, whatever
form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of
the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt
to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence!
21 How. 523. . ~
This decision was fully affirmed nearly 25 years afterwards, in
Tarble’s Case, 13 Wall. 397. Tarble had enlisted in the United i
States army, deserted, and been arrested, and he was restrained of
hisdiberty on that ground, by Lieut. Stone, in charge of the sta-
tion. A writ of habeas corpus having been issued by a state commis-
sioner having jurisdiction to issue such write, and served, Lieut.
Stone made return that the petitioner had enlisted, deserted, and
been captured, and he claimed to hold him rightfully as a soldier
under the laws of the United States. It was replied that he was a
minor under 18 years of age; that he had been inveigled into enlist-
ing without the consent of his father, and that the enlistment was
void, on this and other grounds set out, and it was claimed that the ‘
petitioner was unlawfully restrained of his liberty. The commis-
sioner took testimony, heard the case, and discharged him. The pro-
ceedings of the commissioner were affirmed by the supreme court of
Wisconsin. The judgment of the state supreme court was subse-_ .
quently reversed by the supreme court of the United States, after an
elaborate review of the questions involved, not on the ground that the _
state commissioner and court erred on the facts, or the uulawfulness
of the imprisonment, but upon the ground that they had no right, or
jurisdiction, to examine or determine the question as to the lawful-
ness of the imprisonment at all, after the fact was brought to the at-
tention of the court issuing the writ that the otlicer, in good faith, _
claimed to hold him under authority of the laws of the United States
—-that upon these facts appearing the jurisdiction was ousted. Said
the court upon this question:
"State judges and state courts, authorized by laws of their states to issue
write of habeas corpus, have, undoubtedly, a right to issue the writ in any
case where a party is alleged to be illegally confined within their limits, WIZ-
less it appear upon his application that he is conjined under the authority,
or claim and color of the authority, of the United States, by an ojhcer of that
government. If such fact appear upon the application, the writ should be
refused. If it do not appear, the judge or court issuing the writ has a rig/it
to inquire into the cause of imprisonment, and ascertain by what authority
The person is held within the limits of the state; and it is the duty of the