HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0347 and id is 1 raw text is: Dec. 1871.] TARBLE'S CASE. 897
Statement of the case.
TARBLE'S CASE.
1. The government of the United States and the government of a State are
distinct and independent of each other within their respective spheres
of action, although existing and exercising their powers within the
same territorial limits. Neither government can intrude within the
jurisdiction, or authorize any interference therein by its judicial officers
with the action of the other. But whenever any conflict arises between
the enactments of the two sovereignties, or in the enforcement of their
asserted authorities, those of the national government have supremacy
until the validity of the different enactments and authorities are deter-
mined by the tribunals of the United States.
2. A State judge has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus, or to
continue proceedings under the writ when issued, for the discharge of a
person held under the authority, or claim and color of the authority, of
the United States by an officer of that government. If upon. the appli-
cation for the writ it appear that the party, alleged to be illegally re-
strained of his liberty, is held under the authority, or claim and color
of the authority, of the United States, by an officer of that government,
the writ should be refused. If this fact do not thus appear, the State
judge has the right to inquire into the cause of imprisonment, and ascer-
tain by what authority the person is held within the limits of the State;
and it is the duty of the marshal, or other officer having the custody of
the prisoner, to give, by a proper return, information in this respect.
But after he is fully apprised by the return that the party is held by an
officer of the United States, under the authority, or claim and color of
the authority of the United States, he can proceed no further.
3. These principles applied to a case where a habeas corpus was issued by a
court commissioner of one of the counties of Wisconsin to a recruiting
officer of the United States, to bring before him a person who had en-
listed as a soldier in the army of the United States, and whose discharge
was sought on the alleged ground that he was a minor under the age of
eighteen years at the time of his enlistment, and that he enlisted with-
out the consent of his father. The petition for the writ alleging that
the prisoner bad enlisted as a soldier and been mustered into the mili-
tary service of the national government, and was detained by the officer
as such soldier-this court held that the court commissioner had no
jurisdiction to issue the writ for the discharge of the prisoner, as it thus
appeared upon the petition that the prisoner was detained under claim
and color of the authority of the United States by an officer of that
government; and that if he was illegally detained, it was for the courts
or judicial officers of 'the United States and for those courts or officers
alone to grant him release.
ERnOR to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
This was a proceeding on habeas corpus for the discharge](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0347&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)