A 36 rmomasn amronrmn.
, marshal, or other ojicer having the custody of the prisoner, to give, by a
proper return, information in this respect. His return should be suificient,
in its detail of facts, to show distinctly that the imprisonment is under the
authority, or claim and color of the authority, of the United States, and to
exclude the suspicion of imposition or oppression on his part. And the pro-
cess, or orders, under which the prisoner is held should be produced with
l the return, and submitted to inspection, in order that the court or judge is—
suing the writ may see that the prisoner is held by the officer in good faith,
under the authority, or claim and color of the authority, of the United States,
and not under the mere pretense of having such authority."
An attempt was made, upon other authorities cited, to distinguish
the case from Booth’s cases, and to limit the application of the doc-
trines established by them; but the court emphatically repudiated
any such limitation, as appears by the following explicit language:
" Some attempt has been made in adjudications, to which our attention has
A been called, to limit the decision of this court in Ableman v. Booth, and the
United States v. Booth, to cases where a, prisoner is held in custody under
undisputed lauful authority of the United States, as distinguished from his
U imprisonment under claim and color of such authority. »But it is evident
that the decision does not admit of any such limitation. It would have been
unnecessary to enforce, by any extended reasoning, such as the chief justice
uses, the position that when it appeared to the judge or oilicer issuing the
writ that the prisoner was held under undisputed lawful authority, he should
proceed no further. No federal judge, eoen, could, in such case, release the
party from imprisonment, except upon bail when that was allowable. The
detention being by admitted lawful authority, no judge could set the prisoner
at liberty, except in that way, at any stage of the proceeding. All that is
. meant by the language used is that the state judge or state court should
proceed no further when it appears, from the application of the party. or
the return made, that the prisoner is held by an oficer ofthe United States
under what, in truth, purports to be the authority ofthe United States; that
is, an authority, the validity of which is io be determined by the constitution
and laws of the United States. lf a, party thus held be illegally imprisoned,
it is for the courts or judicial officers of the United States, and those courts
or officers alone, to grant him release."
The court concludes:
“It follows, from the views we have expressed, that the court commis-
sioner of Dane county was without jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas
corpus for the discharge of the prisoner in this case, it appearing, upon the
application presented to him for the writ, that the prisoner was held by an
ojicer of the United States under claim and color of the authorityof the
United States, as an enlisted soldier mustered into the military service of the
national government; and the same information was imparted to the com-
missioner by the return of the ojficer. The commissioner was, both by the ap-
plication for the writ and the return to it, apprised that the prisoner was
within the dominion and jurisdiction of another government, and that no
writ of habeas corpus issued by him could pass over the line which divided
the two sooereignties. The conclusion we have reached renders it unnecessary
to consider how far the declaration ofthe prisoner as to his age, in the oath
of enlistment, is to be deemed conclusive evidence on that point on the returr
to the writ."
Now, the case of the petitioner in this proceeding, except that th
oificer or agent of the United States having Bayley in charge 5