The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 122

[683] 4 Stat. 634, -- 7 (1833).

[684] 5 Stat. 539 (1942).

[685] 14 Stat. 385 (1867).

[686] Rev. Stat., -- 753; 28 U.S.C.A. -- 2242.

[687] 100 U.S. 257 (1880).

[688] In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890).

[689] In re Loney, 134 U.S. 372 (1890).

[690] Boske _v._ Comingore, 177 U.S. 459 (1900).

[691] Ohio _v._ Thomas, 173 U.S. 276 (1899).

[692] 209 U.S. 205 (1908).

[693] 117 U.S. 241 (1886).

[694] Ibid. 251.

[695] Harkrader _v._ Wadley, 172 U.S. 148 (1898); Whitten _v._ Tomlinson, 160 U.S. 231 (1895).

[696] Frank _v._ Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915); Tinsley _v._ Anderson, 171 U.S. 101 (1898).

[697] Maryland _v._ Soper, 270 U.S. 9, 36, 44 (1926). In addition to the cases cited above _see_ Ex parte Fonda, 117 U.S. 516 (1886); Duncan _v._ McCall, 139 U.S. 449 (1891); New York _v._ Eno, 155. U.S. 89 (1894); Baker _v._ Grice, 169 U.S. 284 (1898); Matter of Moran, 203 U.S. 96 (1906); Mooney _v._ Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935); Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114 (1944). Compare, however, Wade _v._ Mayo, 334 U.S. 672 (1948), where it was held that failure of the pet.i.tioner to appeal to the Supreme Court from a conviction sustained by the Florida Supreme Court did not bar relief by _habeas corpus_ because of denial of counsel. In Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. 114 (1944), the rule pertaining to the exhaustion of remedies was applied so as to include a certiorari pet.i.tion in the Supreme Court. In adopting a new United States Code in 1948 (62 Stat. 967) Congress added a new section to existing _habeas corpus_ provisions which stipulated that no application for a writ of _habeas corpus_ by a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a State court shall be granted until the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the States and that an applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted State remedies if he has the right under State law to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented, 28 U.S.C.A. -- 2254. This section codified Ex parte Hawk.

[698] 334 U.S. 672 (1948).

[699] 258 U.S. 254 (1922).

[700] Ibid. 259.

[701] Houston _v._ Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, 27-28 (1820).

[702] Carriage Tax Act, 1 Stat. 373 (1794); License Tax on Wine and Spirits Act, 1 Stat. 376 (1794).

[703] 1 Stat. 302 (1793).

[704] 1 Stat. 414 (1795).

[705] 1 Stat. 577.

[706] 1 Stat. 727 (1799).

[707] 2 Stat. 453 (1808); 2 Stat. 473 (1808); 2 Stat. 499 (1808); 2 Stat. 506 (1809); 2 Stat. 528 (1809); 2 Stat. 550 (1809); 2 Stat. 605 (1810); 2 Stat. 707 (1812); 3 Stat. 88 (1813).

[708] 3 Stat. 244. For the trial of federal offenses in State courts _see_ Charles Warren, Federal Criminal Laws and State Courts, 38 Harv.

L. Rev. 545 (1925).

[709] Charles Warren, Federal Criminal Laws and State Courts, 38 Harv.

L. Rev. 545, 577-581 (1925).

[710] Justice Story dissenting in Houston _v._ Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, 69 (1820); Justice McLean dissenting in United States _v._ Bailey, 9 Pet.

238, 259 (1835).

[711] 16 Pet. 539, 615 (1842).

[712] Robertson _v._ Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897); Dallemagne _v._ Moisan, 197 U.S. 169 (1905). _See also_ Teal _v._ Felton, 12 How. 284 (1852); Claflin _v._ Houseman, 93 U.S. 130 (1876). This last case proceeds on the express a.s.sumption that the State and National Governments are part of a single nation and implicity repudiates the idea of separate sovereignties, as set out in Prigg _v._ Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539 (1842).

[713] Mitch.e.l.l Wendell, Relations between the Federal and State Courts (New York, 1949), 278.

[714] 35 Stat. 65 (1908).

[715] Hoxie _v._ New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 82 Conn. 352 (1909).

[716] 223 U.S. 1, 59 (1912).

[717] Brown _v._ Western Ry. Co. of Alabama, 338 U.S. 294 (1949). _See_ Justice Frankfurter's dissent in this case for a summary of rulings to the contrary.

[718] 330 U.S. 386 (1947).

[719] 56 Stat. 23, 33-34, 205 (c).

[720] 330 U.S. 386, 389.

[721] Ibid. 390. Justice Black refers to Prigg _v._ Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539, 615 (1842), and other cases as broadly questioning the power and duty of State courts to enforce federal criminal law. The cases primarily relied upon in the opinion are Claflin _v._ Houseman, 93 U.S.

130 (1876); Mondou _v._ New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. (Second Employers'

Liability Cases), 223 U.S. 1 (1912).

[722] _Cf._ Doyle _v._ Continental Ins. Co., 94 U.S. 535 (1877), (which upheld a similar Wisconsin statute), and Security Mut. L. Ins. Co. _v._ Prewitt, 202 U.S. 246 (1906); with Home Ins. Co. _v._ Morse, 20 Wall.

445 (1874); Barron _v._ Burnside, 121 U.S. 186 (1887); Southern P. Co.

_v._ Denton, 146 U.S. 202 (1892); Gerling _v._ Baltimore & O.R. Co., 151 U.S. 673, 684 (1894); Barrow S.S. Co. _v._ Kane, 170 U.S. 100, 111 (1898); Herndon _v._ Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 218 U.S. 135 (1910); Harrison _v._ St. Louis & S.F.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318 (1914); Donald _v._ Philadelphia & R. Coal & I. Co., 241 U.S. 329 (1916).

[723] 257 U.S. 529, 532 (1922).

[724] 25 Edward III, Stat. 5, Ch. 2. _See also_ Story's Commentaries On The Const.i.tution Of The United States, Vol. 2, 529-540, (5th ed.).

[725] 4 Cr. 75 (1807).

[726] Ibid. 75, 126.

[727] Ibid. 126.

[728] Ibid. 127.