Ex parte Turner. It is clear that this section 753 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, was designed for the protection of officers of the United States, for acts done by them or omitted in the execution of the laws of the United States, and in obedience to the orders and decrees of the courts thereof. The congress which enacted this law, which was approved March 2, 1833, recognized it as at least possible that officers of the United States, for acts done or omitted in the execution of the laws of the United States, and for acts done or omitted in obedience to the orders and decrees of its courts, might be arrested and deprived of their liberty by state authority, and this statute provides a remedy for such a state of things. What, then, were the acts done, or omitted to be done, by these officers, which resulted in their arrest and detention by the order of the city court of Selma? That will best appear by a reference to the order made by the city court of Selma, dated August 9, 1879, which seems to be the initiatory step to the proceedings which wore subsequently taken, and which resulted, as the record shows, in a judgment of contempt and the arrest of these officers. The order is in these words: "On application of the grand jury, it is ordered by the court, that the subpoenas duces tecum be forthwith issued by the clerk and register of this court, to Charles E. Mayer, George Turner, J. W. Dimmick and W. J. Bibb, to be and appear before the grand jury of this court, instanter, and that they bring with them all ballot-boxes, poll-lists, ballots, inspectors' certificates, inspectors' returns, tally-sheets, statements, and all other papers and things pertaining or relating to the election held in the county of Dallas, in the state of Alabama, on the 5th day of November, A. D. 1878, for representatives in congress for the fourth congressional district of Alabama. "[Signed] " 'January 9, 1879." JNO. HARALSON, Judge, etc. The county of Dallas is within the middle district of Alabama, and, therefore, within the territorial jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States for that district. Ex parte Turner. It appears from the record that certain ballot-boxes, ballots, poll-lists and inspectors' returns and other papers pertaining to the election held in Dallas county, Alabama, on the 5th day of November, 1878, were produced before the grand jury of the circuit court of the United States for the middle district of Alabama, by the ordinary process of that court at the November term, 1878, of said court held at Montgomery. It is said that the custodians of these boxes, ballots, polllists, inspectors' returns and other papers, under the law of Alabama, had no right to give them up to the custody of the circuit court of the United States, and that the custody of that court is illegal and wrongful. If it be correct to say that no authority was competent to take the boxes and papers from the custody provided by the law of Alabama, and if that be the true construction of section 288 of the code of Alabama, then by what right does the city court of Selma require the production of these papers by its process of subpœna duces tecum? But it is not important on this hearing to inquire how the ballot-boxes, ballots and papers came into the custody and control of the circuit court of the United States. The fact is they did come into such control, and that by the ordinary process of the court, and being there by means of such process, they cannot be wrested from it in the manner attempted. But it cannot be maintained that the custody of the ballots, poll-lists and papers which, by direction of the state law, is given to one of the inspectors who acted as such at the poll of election, places these papers beyond the reach and process of courts of justice, state or national, which are clothed with power and jurisdiction to indict and try offenders against suffrage and the elective franchise. There are a number of penal provisions in the code of Alabama for the protection of suffrage; they are found in chapter 8, sections 4279 and 4994 inclusive, and it will not be maintained that the courts of Alabama have not power to require the production of these ballots and papers when they are necessary and proper evidence in prosecutions under the law of which the courts of the state have jurisdiction. The election in question was for a representative in Ex parte Turner. congress, and article 1, section 4 of the constitution of the United States provides, that "times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof, but the congress may, at any time by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators." The congress of the United States has provided a body of penal laws for the punishment of persons who may be convicted of crimes against the elective franchise and civil rights of citizens; they are found in sections 5506 and 5532 inclusive, of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and the circuit courts of the United States are inve ted with original jurisdiction to try offenders against these laws. We, then, see that the circuit court of the United States for the middle district of Alabama has power and jurisdiction to try persons charged with crimes against suffrage at the election held for member of congress on the 5th day of November, 1878, in the county of Dallas, state of Alabama. If it has such power and jurisdiction under the law, then it has the right and power to use its process to obtain the evidence, if it can be obtained, by which its jurisdiction can be made effective. If by means of its process it obtains documents and papers which are proper matters of evidence in any suit then pending, its jurisdiction attaches at once to such documents and papers, and no court of concurrent jurisdiction can by its process reach them. If it is otherwise, then one court could destroy the jurisdiction of another court of concurrent jurisdiction, by wresting from it the means by which that jurisdiction could be made effective. This is a case when the state courts and the federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the same subject, and it is a principle of law well settled that when the jurisdiction of a court, and the right of a plaintiff to prosecute his suit therein, have once attached, that right cannot be arrested or taken away by proceedings in another court, unless it be some court which may have a direct supremacy or control over the court where process has first taken possession, or some superior jurisdiction in the premises: Freeman v. Howe, 24 Howard, 450; Buck v. Ex parte Turner. Colbath, 3 Wall., 334; Peck v. Jenness, 7 Howard, 612; New Orleans v. Steamship Co., 20 Wall., 387. In the last case cited, the Supreme Court of the United States uses this language: "The circuit court, having first acquired possession of the original case, was entitled to hold it exclusively until the same was finally disposed of. It was unwarranted in law, and grossly disrespectful to the circuit court, to invoke the interposition of the state court, as to anything within the scope of the litigation already pending in the federal court." The circuit court of the United States acquired jurisdiction of the subject matter at the November term, 1878, of said court. The papers, matters and things in question here were used in evidence before the grand jury at that term of the court. True bills were found by the grand jury, at that term, against various parties, for offenses alleged to have been committed in the county of Dallas, state of Alabama, by means of fraudulent returns touching the election held in said county on the 5th day of November, 1878, and these cases are still pending and undetermined in said court. It results from this, all of which is shown by the record and evidence upon this hearing, that the papers, matters and things in question came into the custody, control and jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States for the middle district of Alabama, at the November term, 1878, of said court; that they are still in such jurisdiction, to be used in evidence in causes still pending in said court. And such being the fact, they are subject to the control and jurisdiction of no other court which has only concurrent jurisdiction of the same subject matter. The jurisdiction, then, of the circuit court of the United States over the subject matter was prior in point of time, and it was neither illegal nor unlawful, but such as is authorized by the laws of congress. If this position be correct, then it was the duty of that court to defend its jurisdiction and protect it from invasion. The order of the circuit court of the United States, made on the 13th day of January, 1879, at an adjourned term of said court, as the evidence shows, has been referred to as the VOL. III.-39 Ex parte Turner. source of the jurisdiction of the court over the papers in question. But that order did not, and could not, create jurisdiction, and was only directory to the officer, that the jurisdiction already acquired might be made more secure and inviolate against invasion. Will it be seriously argued that the United States marshal, at the command and order of a court of another and different jurisdiction, should despoil and destroy the jurisdiction of the court of which he is a sworn officer? Had he obeyed the order of the city court of Selma, and removed the papers, matters and things beyond and out of the jurisdiction of the circuit court of the United States for the middle district of Alabama, without the order and authority of that court, he would have made himself justly liable to proceedings for contempt of the court, the jurisdiction of which was thus violated. The cases at bar are, to my mind, clearly within the letter and spirit of section 753 of the Revised Statutes, cited above. The authorities cited in argument are in exposition of this statute, and sustain this view of the subject: Ex parte Jenkins, 2 Wallace, jr., 521; Ex parte Robinson, U. S. Marshal, 6 McLean, 355. The conclusion is, that these officers were restrained of their liberty for an act omitted to be done in pursuance of a law of the United States, and an order, process and decree thereof. It is unnecessary to go further, but I will notice one or two points made by the counsel for the state, in opposition to the discharge of the petitioners. It is insisted, and much authority is read to show, that the right of punishing for contempts, by summary conviction, is inherent in all courts of justice, and that every court is the judge whether a contempt has been committed against it. That proposition is not controverted, but it is equally well settled, that if a court, assuming to pronounce a judgment of contempt, or any other judgment, has no jurisdiction, the judgment is coran non judice and void. The question here is, did the city court of Selma have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the |