(orally). It appears from the petition in this case that Andrew M. Lawrence and L. L. Levings, the first the managing editor and the other a reporter of the San Francisco Examiner, are in the custody of the sheriff of Sacramento county, and L. F. Blackburn, sergeant at arms, by virtue of certain resolutions adopted by the senate of the state of California March 10,1897. The resolution in the case of Andrew M. Lawrence is as follows:

The petitioner L. L. Levings is in custody under substantially the same resolution. In the petition it is alleged that the imprisonment of Lawrence and Levings is illegal, in this:

To this petition a return has been made by the sheriff of Sacramento county, which recites the proceedings before the state senate, referred to in the resolution; the proceedings before the superior court of the county of Sacramento on habeas corpus, wherein the writ was discharged and Lawrence and Levings remanded to the custody of the sheriff; and also proceedings before the supreme court of the state of California on habeas corpus, which also resulted in the discharge of the writ and the remanding of the parties to the custody of the sheriff. Por the purpose of this decision, it will only be necessary to refer to that part of the return which relates to the proceedings in the supreme court of this state. 48 Pac. 124 . After setting out in full the order of the supreme court whereby Andrew M. Lawrence and L. L. Levings are brought before that court, the return proceeds as follows:

From this opinion and order of the supreme court, it appears that the alleged illegal imprisonment of the parties has been considered upon all the grounds alleged in the petition; but it is contended that the detention of the parties is contrary to the provisions of the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth articles of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, and that, therefore, an inquiry into the cause of the detention is peculiarly within the jurisdiction of this court. It must be observed, however, that the inquiry in the supreme court of the state necessarily involved the w'hole question of an illegal detention, and that the contempt proceedings which resulted in the imprisonment were matters peculiarly within the exclusive jurisdiction of the state, and, so far as these proceedings appear by the petition and return, were regular, and the imprisonment was within the power and authority of the state senate to impose. Ex parte McCarthy, 29 Cal. 395 ; Burnham v. Morrissey, 14 Gray, 226 ; People v. Keeler, 99 N. Y. 463 , 2 N. E. 615 . The first and most important question, therefore, to determine is whether this court will further inquire into the detention of the parties, in view of the proceedings that have been taken in the courts of this state. The contention of the petitioners is that they have been deprived of rights guarantied to them under the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state, but it is as competent for the state court to determine questions of that character as it is for a federal court. The line between state and federal authority, with respect to matters that may be inquired into by the writ of habeas corpus, has been very carefully drawn by the supreme court of the United States. The subject has frequently been under consideration, and has been elaborately considered with respect to all the elements of jurisdiction, and the law with respect thereto clearly established. It only remains for this court to be guided by that law. In Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624, 637 , 4 Sup Ct. 544, 551, the supreme court said:

In the case of In re Wood, 140 U. S. 278 , 11 Sup. Ct. 738, the court say, at page 287, 140 U. S., and page 741, 11 Sup. Ct.:

Another case is Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183 , 13 Sup. Ct. 40. The court held:

In the case of In re Prederich, 149 U. S. 70 , 13 Sup. Ct. 793, the question was very thoroughly reviewed by the supreme court, and it was there said (page 75, 149 U. S., and page 795, 13 Sup. Ct.):

*104 To the same effect is the case of New York v. Eno, 155 U. S. 89 , 15 Sup. Ct. 30:

Also, Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. S. 655 , 15 Sup. Ct. 727:

These cases clearly establish the doctrine that, except, perhaps, under extraordinary circumstances, United States courts will not, by means of the writ of habeas corpus, take jurisdiction over proceedings in state, tribunals, even though it is alleged that a constitutional right is involved, and that, where such a question has been determined by the highest court in the state upon the general allegation of an illegal imprisonment, the proper proceedings for review are by a writ of error to the supreme court of the United States. That being the rule, without going into the merits of this case,—without considering the objections which have been raised to the proceedings taken by the state senate, and so ably argued by counsel,—I think I am authorized, under these decisions, to hold that the writ of habeas corpus should not be granted in this case, and that the petitioners should be allowed to pursue their remedy by the other method pointed out in the cases that I have referred to. The writ of habeas corpus will therefore be discharged, and the petitioners remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Sacramento county.