Court for the Dlst. of Mariilaml :

"Sir, -- My attention has been directed to an article in the Local Column of the Bullimore Sun of this date, headed, ' The Habeas Corpus Refusal.' Presuming that that article is authentic, I wish very respectfully to submit for your consideration the following remarks on this unhappy ' Contlict of authority between those owing allegiance to the same government and bound by the same laws : '

"To avoid ^implicating parties in nowise conuected with this case, permit me to observe at the threshold that m}' action in the premises was taken entirely on my own responsibility, without instructions from or consultation with any jierson whatever, and now I wish most respect fully Ui inform your Honor that I regard the writ of Habeas Corpus as the very basis of free government, and that under all ordinary circumstances I am very ready to acknowledge the Supremacy of the Civil authorities. But, as you admit, the Constitution of the United States has provided that this writ of Habeas Corpus may be suspended in case of rebellion if the public safety requires it. You, however, allege that there is 'no such state of affairs existing as would authorize its suspension.' On this point it is with regret that I am compelled to differ from BO eminent an antliority, and I am further constrained to add that the question is one of fact rather than of opinion.

"At the date of issuing your writ and for two weeks previous, the city in which you live and where your Court has been held was entirely under the control of revolutionary authorities. Within that period United States soldiers, while conunitting no offence, had been perfidiously attacked and inhumanly murdered in your streets ; no punishments had been awarded, and I believe no arrests had been made for these atrocious crimes; supplies of provisions intended for this garrison had been stopped ; the intention to cai)ture this fort had beeu boldly proclaimed ; your most public thoroughfares were daily patrolled by large numbers iif