/ 209 U. 8. Argument for parte Cro?ch, 112 U.S. 178; Ex parte Fonda, 117 U.S. 516; ?rte RoFa//, 117 U.S. 241; In re Thomas H. Harding, 120 U.S. 782; Ex parte Ayres, 123 U. 8. 443; State o] New York v. 155 U. 8.90; Thomas v. Loney, 134 U.S. 372; Pepke v. Cronan, 155 U.S. 98; Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U.S. 273; Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U.S. 655; Whilten v. Tomlinson, 160 U.S. 234; Minnesota ?. Bru .n?e, 180 U.S. 499; Storti v. Massachusegts, 183 U.S. 46; Re/d v. Jones, 187 U.S. 151; Ri?gins v. United States, 199 U.S. 547; F//ts v. MeGbee, 172 U.S. 516. Mr. Al[r?d P. Thom, Mr. Walker D. Hines and Mr. Alexander P. Humphrey for appellee on the same point: Wood's release upon writ of habeas c?pus was a lawful and essential step in carrying out the decision of the court and en- forcing the jurisdiction of the court. Revised Statutes, �3, sanctions the use of the writ of habeas corpus in the present case, because Wood was in custody for an act done in pursuance of an order of a court of the United States. The fight of the court to protect its order and process by the issue of the writ is unquestioned. The expediency of the action of the court is manifest. The court had decided titat the passvnger-rate statute ought not to be enforced pending final determination of thc question. This decision would have been ab?lutcly nu!lifi?i if the agents of the railway company could have been imprisoned by the state authorities. This is not a mere surmise as to possible consequences, but is simply a statement of what was imminent at the time of Woocl's arrest and subsequent discharge. Not only was the supremacy of the judicial power of the United States menaced by the action of which the arrest and conviction of Wood was a part, but the whole interstate com- merce of the Southern Railway Company and its transportation of the United States mails were vitally involved. For illustrations of the discharge of persons in custody (under ?ate authority) upon writs of habeo." corpus by Federal courts
�
