THE UNITED STATES

PIE RE A. ER.
{"character_count": 3781, "word_count": 659, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9466999769210815], "ccnet_perplexity": [1011.0999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
dfStress warrant issued By the Solicitor OF
the Treasury of the United States, has filed
his petition for the writ of Habeas Corpus 10
obtain a discharge. His confinement is al
lodged in his petition to be illegal and unjust,
because an act of the Legislature of This
State has virtually abolished imprisonment
for debt. and because the act of Congress of
lS4l, does not allow Imprisonment for debt
upon process issued from the Courts of the
United States in those States in which, un-
der process from the State Courts the party
could not be imprisoned.


We are met at the first step under this
application, with the enquiry whether
Judge of a State Court has any jurisdiction
in case like this Ii is conceded in the ar
gument IN support of the petition. that were
the defendant IN custody under judicial pro-
cess emanating from Court of the United
States, that no Judicial Officer of State
could interfere That concession is certain.
ly correct. But it is insisted that as the CON
fnement in this case is not under judicial
process, but under ministerial act State
Judge may take cognizance of it, and dis
charge the defendant If he is in custody with
out lawful authority. This is delicate and
difficult question and should be approached
with much caution.


Several cases have been cited in the argu-
ment in which the power to issue the writ of
Habeas Corpus to iberate persons in custo-
dy under authority of the United States has
been exercised by State Judges or State
Courts. Ex parte Pool and al 2 Va. cases
276. Elk parte Stacy 10 Johns: Common
wealth vs. Harrison and Gushing. IL Mass.
63 67. But it has been doubted whether
such an exercise of authority is constitution
al-contrary cases are to be found-and it
yet remains to be decided whether the pow
or can be maintained, Story's Com Con.
625. Serg. on Cons. Law, Ch. n. %. Ex
par,e Ferguson. 9 Johns. 238 In the abb
sence Of any decision which should regard
as binding authority. must decide the CUES
ton according to my own covictions of the
law.


The power to collect revenue sufficient
to defray the expenses of Government is ne
cessary to the very existence of the Govern
ment- The means to enforce payment by
the receivers and collectors of the public


money collected Dy authority of the United


States, must be possessed by the general
Government and in its very nature must be
exclusive If the Legislative or Judicial
lpower of a State could interfere in any way
to stop the proceedings of the General Gov


ernment in enforcing payment of its dues
that government would only subsis: at the
pleasure of the States. The power of col
lecting lis revenue must be extremely pre-
lcarious. if any State officer can in any man.
ner interpose to obstruct any means thought


necessary by the government of the United


States for enforcing the most prompt ant
efectual accountability ofiis officers 1t ha


been heretofore settled that lhe States hav,


no power to retard, impede, burtnen or !,


any manner control the operations ofth
Constitutional laws enacted hv Congress


Mccullough Us the State of Maryland !


Wheaton. 1t is true Ina. this doctrine
there laid down In reference to the exercis


of Legislative powers. but It is equally tru


and equally applicable to the exercise of ],
dicial powers. The process of distrings
: issued by the Treasury department is
strict conformity 10 the Constitution an
laws of Congress Randolph's case. 9 p
$ ters How then can the officer of S:a


consistently with the principles above la
down. interfere to arrest its process. or retal


its operation. It has been farther settle


that no State tribunal can Interfere with Sc
: cures Of property made BY revenue officer
d under the laws Of the United States. or inte


rups by process Of replevin; injuns'icn