In re Krug

• Decision Date: 10 March 1897
• Citation: 79 F. 308
• Parties: In re KRUG.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington, Northern Division

79 F. 308

In re KRUG.

United States Circuit Court, D. Washington, Northern Division.

March 10, 1897

James Hamilton Lewis, for petitioner.

HANFORD District Judge (orally).

If this petition tendered an issue of fact upon which the right of the petitioner depended, I would be bound to grant the writ and allow an issue to be joined, and to hear the testimony and determine the question of fact in the usual manner. But where it appears plainly, as a matter of law, on the facts alleged in the petition, that issuance of a writ of habeas corpus would be an unwarranted interference on the part of this court with the execution of the laws of the state, I cannot conceive that it is the duty of the court to issue the writ. This application is something more than an application to the court to issue a summons or a notice to bring in the opposite party to join issue here. It is an application to this court to issue a writ by which to take the defendant out of the custody of the sheriff of the county, who has him in custody, pursuant to a final adjudication of a court of competent jurisdiction; and, before issuing a writ to interfere with the execution of the laws of the state, the court should properly inquire into the facts, or require the facts to be set forth in the application, so that the court can see that there is a proper case to be investigated in this manner. There are cases wherein individuals complain of being deprived of their liberty in violation of the constitution or a law of the United States, where it is shown that the state authorities are attempting to punish a man for an act which is right under the constitution and laws of the United States, sometimes for performing a duty pursuant to a law of the United States. Such a case is the Neagle Case, 39 F. 833. In every such case as that the federal court will not require the petitioner to go through the form of a trial in the state court, but will at once issue its process to afford him the protection of the constitution and laws of the United States, without any hesitation, without any delay, and without requiring him to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the state court. There are other instances in which individuals seek the process of a federal court by writ of habeas corpus to protect them against infringement of rights claimed under the constitution and laws of the United States, where they do not pretend that the act for which the authorities are proceeding to punish them or deprive them of their liberty is a lawful act, but they complain that the manner in which the officers are proceeding is in violation of the constitution and laws of the United States. Such an instance as that is the Friedrich Case, 51 F. 747, where Mr. Friedrich, by his petition to this court, set forth that he was convicted of the crime of murder, and had been sentenced to be imprisoned in the penitentiary for a period of 20 years; and he complained that the manner in which the authorities had arrived at this judgment was contrary to the provisions of the constitution and laws of the United States, and therefore he was entitled to be protected by the federal court. Now, in cases of that kind the supreme court has laid down the rule in the Royall Case, 6 Sup.Ct. 734, and adhered to it in the Frederich Case 13 Sup.Ct. 793, that the court to which the application is made has a right to exercise its discretion whether to grant the writ in the first instance, or wait until the party has been arraigned in the state tribunal, and been tried, and then, after a conviction, to wait until he has exercised his right to a review in the appellate court by a writ of error. The reason why the court is authorized to exercise this discretion is that in the one case, no matter what the determination of the state court may be, the act itself cannot be punished without coming in conflict with the constitution and laws of the United States, while in the other case the mere form and manner of procedure can be as well determined, and the rights of the parties presumably will be as well protected and guarded, by proceedings according to the state laws, in the state courts, as in the federal court. But after a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, when it is still contended that the federal constitution has been violated, the federal court has the power, and it is the duty of the federal court, to interfere for the protection of rights of this nature, when it is shown that they have been violated. It is a matter of transcending importance, however, that the federal court shall not issue its writ to interfere with the execution of the laws, unless there is a plain case requiring it. Before I issue this writ, I must look to the facts which Mr. Krug sets forth in support of his general claim that he is being deprived of liberty in violation of the constitution and laws of the United States. Now, what is his claim? He claims that he has not been proceeded against by indictment, as provided in the sixth amendment to the constitution of the United States. Well, the constitution gives him the right to insist that he cannot be tried for violating a law of the state except upon an indictment.

Interruption by Col....