Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-02-27

they asrdni,tra by the district attorney
h's s. argument, 10 wit. Ia.. TINS W.T.
iu MS : concurrent power with the
posss.. sour, 10 admitting 10 bail. No"
d'ssi,rea,p power in SUCH case muss DC
asonI mower, aud the principle IN
% oh and Madison applies as much
ha =. ;.,uiug of a habsas ssrpns IN q
our IL treason as 10 the lssnlng OF .
ss' case IN a case not more remote
aa he ofigiaal jurisdiction Of the court
. a..;us thus di.embarrassed the Gass.'on
nam he sifect of precedent, | proceed 70
p".;dsr the construction of the two sec
ssaa, Of ihs judiciary act above refsrTsd:
i necessary to premise that the case OF
..s,en i. one Ia which this court possesses
o.;,nsr original nof appellate jurisdiction.
The nth .seosioa Of .hs Judiciary aes so
f,r a,it has relation to this case Is IN these
words .Al the befsre. uaentiened courts
lof ub;ch this is one of the United States,
Nall have powsr 80 issue wriss OF Seire
Facias. Haaeas Corpus and all other wriss
no, ,pscialIy provided for by statute whieh
NAV bs necessary for The exercise OF their
resneciys iurisdie,ians, and agreeable to
n. principles and usages oflaw." l do Q
think j, material 70 the opinlon entsrtain,
what construction is given TO shis sen-
,,oce. IF the power 20 issue the wits OF
ss;re Fseias and Hahsas Corpus, be not
restricted 70 the cases within the original
or appellate jurisdislion Of this eaurs. 1hs
case of Marbusy and Madison rejects the
clause as unasaii,ng ; aud ifit re!a;s only 70
sasss within their jurisaistion, it does not
.x,sua 20 the case which IS now moved
sor. BUTT is impossible to give a ssnsib'e
construction TO that clause wIthsuf taking
she Whole s.cgethsr-it consists OF but one
sso;ence. intimately connected Throughout,
asd has forts ebiectthe creation Of thoae
powers uhsh probably would have vested
10 the respective coarts, without %s.atutaryy
provision a. incident te the exercise CT
their jurisdiction.
To give TO this clause the construction
= n,eaded for by counsel, would be 10
suppose ths, the isgislatare would commit
,hs absurd act Of granting the power OF IS
saiog the wri,s of .sirs faeias aud haheas
corpus, siihOu. an objess or end to be an.
swsfrd by them. Thisidea is No, a little
supported by the next succeeding clause ia
,whfes q power-is vested in the Individual
judges 10 issue the writ of habeas corpus,
expressly for the purpose of enquiringinso
the cause of commitment. That part OF
she SD section OF the judiciary act, which
relates 90 this subjses, is in the following
words: " And upon al arrests In oEimina!
cases, bail shall Be admitted, except whers
the punishment death, IN which case is
shall SGT be admitted but by the supreme
or a circuit court, or by a justice Of the
supreme court, r Judge OF q district
eoarss ~Ao shall exercise their discretion
therein, regarding the nature and circum-
ssapeescf the naease, and of the evidence
aud usage of lazy.
On considering this act it cannot be de.
MED that if Invests any power al all, 1t is
an original power. " Is is the essential
e~iitsfiou of appellate jurisdiction that tire.
sisss & eerreets the proceedings in a cause
iassitussd.' / quote the words Of
the eourtsin the case Of Marbary VS.. Asa'
disco. 5
And so far is this clause fros giving>a
power soerevise aud correct, that it actually
the, district judges the same lasi.
sade of discretion by the sans gwords.tha
II commanieases TO this court. Aud with
cut deruga,ag from a resFssrabiliiy which
! must feel as deep an interest 10 maintain.
ing as any meaber OF this court, must
that the district court or anyinei-
sldaal district judge possesses the sans
pewsr to revise en- decision, that we do
revise theirs nay more, For the powers
which they may be vested are nor
so Observation-Disclosures and divided by the
constitution as oursare. Should we per.
lOfp an art vhirh >1crordip O. RI our own