Collections: 
0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

Page 4 of Argument of J. Proctor Knott in re Varney Hatfield et al., on habeas corpus before the United States district court of Kentucky, February 28, 1888

item | thumbnails | details | text | pdf
Download this image
4 There is, as your Honor is aware, a vast variety of cases in which relief under the writ of habeas corpus can only be sought in the author- ized tribunals of the State Government; while there are others in which it can be afforded by the courts of the United States alone; a-(ld vet a third class, in which either may act without encroaching u pon the authority of the other. But to undertake in this discussion to, draw the line which limits the jurisdiction of the two Governments iii such cases generally, or to explore the territory in which their or- ganized agencies may act concurrently, would not only be an idle dis- play of legal reading, but an unnecessary waste of tine. The Federal Constitution provides that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases in law or equity arising under that Constitution, or the laws and treaties made by their authority; and Cong-ress has by law conferred upon this Court the power to issue writs of habeas corpus in all cases falling within the purview of that provision, wvhich may occur within the territorial limits of its jurisdic- ti:n It is enough, therefore, for the purposes of this contention, to say that, unless the facts presented in the case under consideration blring it within that category, the Court has no power to grant the re- liOf sougllt. WHAT THEN ARE TIHE FACTS It appears from the jailer's return, and it is not controverted, that each of the prisoners at the bar was indicted at the September term, 1882, of the Circuit Court for Pike county, Kentucky, in three cases, fc r the crime of willful and deliberate murder, alleged to have been committed by them in that county; that bench warrants for their ap- pDrehension to answer these indictments were issued and placed in' the hands of' the Sherifr, who, by virtue thereof, arrested them in that county and delivered them, together with copies of the warrants under which they were arrested, to the jailer; that the jailer, as was his duty, received and confined them in the jail of the county where they were held by him in custody in obedience to the mandates of those warrants, A here they were found v hen your Honor's writ was served upon him. THE CAPTURE IN WEST VIRGINIA. It is alleged, however, and the fact is not disputed, that they were violently seized, without legal process, in the State of West Virginia, where they were domiciled, and brought by force, and against their Will, into the State of Kentucky, and that the Governor of West Virginia has demanded that the Governor of Kentucky shall release