To this judgment of the Supreme Court of California, Robb took a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State, not, however, upon the narrow ground on which the State Court had put its decision, but upon the broader basis that Robb, while acting under the authority of the Governor of Oregon, was not acting as a Federal officer, although he was acting by virtue of an authority conferred by the Constitution and laws of the United States; and, further, that the jurisdiction. of the State Courts included the consideration and determination of questions involving authorities, rights, privileges and immunities derived from the Constitution and laws of the United States. In other words, the Supreme Court has decided, in this case, that it lies within the power of a State Court, by its writ of habeas corpus, to interfere with the action of the executive of its own State and with the agent of the executive of another State, both acting under and by virtue of a statute of the United States. To make this case a still more apt illustration of some of the abuses referred to by Judge Thompson, we must notice another phase of it-for it had another phase--and (for Robb, the Oregon agent) a very important phase, too. After Robb had failed to get discharged by application to the Supreme Court of the State, and, apparently, during the pendency of his writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States, he sued out another writ of habeas corpus, going, this time, into the Circuit Court of the United States, and the Court discharged him! See in re Robb, 19 Fed. Reporter. 263 We have, therefore, in this ease, the spectacle of a double interference—the State Court staying the actions of the Governors of two states, and this ruling approved by the highest Federal Court—while an inferior Federal Court, in its turn, ignores the process of the highest State Court and sets its prisoner free. The remedy for this condition of things would seem to be either: 1. That the jurisdiction now existing in the State Courts over such cases should be abridged or taken away. 2. That the Federal Circuit Courts should be deprived. of the power of issuing writs of habeas corpus in such cases; or, 3. That, from the action of the Circuit Courts in habeas corpus cases of this character, an appeal, and not a mere writ of error, should lie to the Supreme Court. It would, no doubt, be eminently proper that the ultimate decision of cases of this sort should rest with the Supreme Court of the United States, for not only do the questions. relate to authority given by the Federal Laws, but they assume, or may assume, the aspect of a contest between the authorities of two States. But the present condition of the docket of this Court, which has already been fully brought to the attention of the Association, admonishes us that appeals of this nature which, if granted, would be eagerly sought whenever the prisoner had friends or money, would produce more evils than they would cure. The desired result is now attainable, so far as questions of law are concerned, by writ of error. As to any review of questions of fact decided by the Circuit Court, this could hardly be considered, in view of our experience as to admiralty appeals and the policy we have been compelled to adopt as to them. We are then left to choose, if any legislation in this particular can be had, between restricting or withdrawing the jurisdiction either of the State or the Federal Courts. It does not seem to your Committee that the original jurisdiction of either should be withdrawn. Some Court must certainly be open to applications for this relief, and it should be whatever Court, competent to do justice, can be quickest reached. This will ordinarily be the Court of a State; but if either party prefers a Court of the United States, it would seem fully in accordance with the spirit of our more recent legislation to permit a removal of the cause before hearing, upon a proper showing that a constitutional question is involved, into the Circuit Court of the United States. In the third place: State Courts have attempted to interfere with the functions of the Federal Executive. Interferences of this kind, however, may be considered as things of the past. The cases of Ableman vs. Booth, 21 Howard, 506, and Tarble's Case, 13 Wallace, 397, would seem to have thoroughly settled the law, and the Federal Judiciary may, with confidence, be relied upon to protect the functions of the Executive of the United States from encroachments of State tribunals. The recent case of Robb vs. Connolly, 106 U. S., 626, already cited and commented upon, recognizes the correctness of the rule laid down in Ableman vs. Booth, and in Tarble's Case, and evinces no disposition on the part of the court to depart from that rule. The last class of cases to be noticed embrace those in which the Federal and State Courts have claimed the right to interfere with each other's processes and do away with the effect of each other's judgments. So far as respects attempts on the part of State tribunals to interfere with the execution of the writs or the enforcement of the judgments of the Courts of the United States, your Committee do not consider that any legislation is necessary. The decisions in Ableman vs. Booth, and in Tarble's Case, already referred to, cover cases of this description, and the rule there laid down may be safely relied upon to forbid a recurrence of abuses of this character. But the complaint that the process, judgments, and decrees of the State Courts are improperly interfered with by writs of habeas corpus issued by Federal tribunals is a just one, and the abuse still remains as a mischief in our jurisprudence which surely demands a remedy by the passage of an act of Congress, whereby it may be provided that when a prisoner, under a writ from a State Court, is discharged under a habeas corpus issued by Circuit or a District Court, an appeal may be taken by the proper State authorities to the Supreme Court of the United States. Possibly, also, a similar appeal should be allowed to the party in custody, if the decision of the Federal Court should be that he be remanded. This, as it seemed to the Committee, may be supplied by so amending the existing statutes as to give the State or other public authorities interested in the case, though not a party to the record, the right to intervene and to have an adverse decision reviewed. Allusion was made at the outset of this report to the possibility that the Courts themselves might correct the abuses complained of. This involves a wise and well considered course of judicial action which would derive aid and support from co-operation by the bar in the creation of a just sentiment on the subject. Habeas corpus cases necessarily require prompt and summary action and decision, and it would be of great value to the administration of this particular branch of justice if, by a common consent on the part of the bench and the bar, the boundaries and limitations of State and Federal jurisdiction could be more definitely determined. This result may, in some measure, be attained by increased interest on the part of the bar, especially in their local associations, in reference to cases occurring within the jurisdiction of their own Courts. The committee recommend the passage of the following resolution: Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee on Jurisprudence and Law Reform, to prepare suitable amendments to the provisions of the Revised Statutes of the United States, relating to writs of habeas corpus to carry into effect. the recommendations of the foregoing report, and to report the same to this Association at its next annual meeting. All which is respectfully submitted. WILLIAM ALLEN BUTLER, SIMEON E. BALDWIN, GEORGE TUCKER BISPHAM, The Chairman: Committee. What action shall be taken upon this report? C. C. Bonney, of Illinois: I move that the report be received, approved, and recommitted to the committee for such further proceedings, in accord with their recommendations, as they may deem proper. The Chairman : The adoption of the resolution, I suppose, is the more material. You will find it on page 9 of the committee's report. Luke P. Poland, of Vermont: The chairman of the committee made some allusion to me, and perhaps I ought to take the time of the Association for a very short time, as I have given considerable attention to this subject. The case that was decided in my own state two or three years ago—and one that is alluded to by Judge |