» m uu Ross. 37
neither a judge, commissioner, nor military officer, actingunder the
judiciary or military laws of the United States, but a person ex-
pressly authorized to act by other statutes of the United States, is
precisely in the condition of Tarble’s Case. The petition of Bayley
on its face showed that he was claimed, at least, to be held in custody
in pursuance of the laws of the United States. It was so explicitly
stated in the petition, and a copy of the warrant showing the author-
ity was annexed to and made a part of the petition for the writ;
and this being so, if the doctrine asserted in the Booth and Tarble
Cases is correct—aud whether correct or not it is controlling in this
court——then, in the language of the court in Tarble’s Case, already
quoted, the judge who issued the writ to the petitioner "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 •ficer" or agent
"of the United States, under claim and color of authority of the
United States, " as a fugitive from justice, to be delivered over to the
authorities of the state of Oregon. But if it were necessary to go
further, the petitioner did exactly what the supreme court of the
United States said he was bound to do under such circumstances, and
made return to the writ showing his authority, giving copies of his
commission from the governor of Oregon, and warrant from the gov- J _
ernor of California, and return of the chief of police, and exhibited
the originals under the seals of the respective states, his authority
thus appearing upon the representations of both the petitioner and
the party restraining him of his liberty, and this state of facts satis-
factorily appeared to the court, for the court itself so adjudged in its
judgment for contempt. And the petitioner further did exactly what
the supreme court of the United States said he must do—respectfully
declined to produce the body of the prisoner. Fortunately, he did
not have occasion to go further, as the court said he must do, if nec-
essary, and resist by all the force at his command any attempt to
compel a production of his body, other than to defend himself in the
courts in response to the writ of habeas corpus issued to and served
upon him, and in the proceedings for contempt now under considera-
tion. . `
Now, if it was lawful for petitioner to decline to produce the body
of Bayley upon the facts disclosed to the court upon the face of the
petition itself, or upon the face of the petition and the return made
to the writ; if it was lawful to resist by force, with all the power at `
his command, any attempt to compel him to produce the body of the '
prisoner; if, upon the facts of the case appearing, as they did ap- i
pear, the judge had no jurisdiction to proceed further or examine at
all into the regularity of the proceeding under which Bayley was
held,—-then there certainly was no jurisdiction or lawful authority to
force a production of Bayley through proceedings for contempt. The
two propositions are incompatible, and their co-existence legally im-