Tom C. Clark

“ The second writ of Habeas corpus ad prosequendum, the only writ here involved, served only as assurance to petitioner and to the court that he would not suffer default in the obligation of his bail. Just as the mere subsequent removal of the prisoner in Endo failed to render that application beyond the court's power to consider, so too here, in a similar vein, we cannot say that these factors have fastened onto petitioner so unsecure a leash as to suffer his escape from the jurisdiction of the California court. We must, therefore, in any event, affirm on these facts. ”

“ I do not say that the federal courts should not have the power to issue extraterritorial writs ad prosequendum. There are persuasive reasons for conferring such authority upon the courts, and Congress is perfectly free to do so. However, if the jurisdiction of the federal courts is to be expanded, and if the traditional territorial limitation is to be abandoned, then Congress should specifically so indicate. ”

“ Following the Judiciary Act of 1789, there came a series of legislative amendments dealing with habeas corpus, but, significantly, all related solely to the usages of the Great Writ. [6] Simultaneously with the expansion of the Great Writ, there developed from the common source, § 14 of the first Judiciary Act, a second line of statutes-the 'All writs' portion of § 14, in large measure the first sentence of that section, devolved by a process of addition along a course parallel to but separate from the habeas corpus provisions. ”