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

,it,elf, to BE baiIe1, is BY the writ now ap.
pied for. OF consequence a court, pos
sessing the power TO bail prisonsrs oct
csmmitted by ITSELF may award a writ OF
ih,bcas corpss for the exercise OF that pow
lei The clause under consideration obvi.
,o,sly proceeds on the superstition shat
this power was previously given, apd IS ex'
Fphnatory to the l4th section.
Ifby the sound construction OF Iths act
oi coagress the power to award wrHs 81
h,beas corpus il order to examine into the
c,use of cemml,mentis g~ivente this court
ID remains TO inquire mhethetAsf BIS be
agase ia which the writ ought ts9e grant
st.
The only objection is, that the con'nls.
rant has been made by a court havsaG
TO eommit and to bail. s
Against this objection the argument
tom the bar has been SO conclusive that
nothing can Ee addsd to il. s,
IfiAis were resIntegra. the court "ealu
decide 10 favor Of shs motien- laat inc
question is considered as long since de-
ciaed. The case Of Hamilton is consider
ed as expressly in pointi ia all lts pats;
and although the question Of jurisdiction
was not made at the, bar, shs case vas
several DAYS under adsisemsnt, ard tais
question could no. have escaped the atten-
ton IF the oeurs. From tina, decision the
court would not lightly depart. (Unltsd
States. ". Hamilton, 5 Dallas ~
Ifths act Of Congress gives this court
tbs power TO award a writ OF habeas corpus
in the presen, case, it remains to inquire
whether tina, act be compatible with the
constitution. /.
Tn the ~manaamus caset it was decided
tina, this court would not exercise origin.
al jurisdiction except so far as sna' Juris'
dicsion was given by the constitution. But
so far as that case has distinguished be-
tween original and appellate jarisais,on,
that which the COURTS now asked~ts cxer-
else is clearly appellate. It's the revision
Of a decision Of an inferior court BY
which a citizen has aeea committed tc
jail.
Il has been demonstrated at the lar
thar the question brought forward on a
| Ha6ea. Cerbus, is always distinct from
that which is involved in the cause itsslf.
The question neither the individual shall
be imprisoned is always distinct from the
question whether he shsll be convicted OF
acquitted Of The charge ON whish he is ts
be tried, and therefore these questions
ars separated. aud may be decided ia dit
fersnt courts.
Tbs decision that the individual shall bt
imprisoned must always preeede the appli
cation for a wri, Of Habeas Corpus, ane
this wri, must always be for the purpose o
revising that decision, and therefore appel
late in It's nature.
But this point also is declaea ia Hamii
tens case and in Burford's case
If at any time the public safety sheule
require the suspension Of hae powers vest
ed by this &C, in the congress OF the u
nissd States, il is for the legislature 70 say
SEQ
The question depends on political con
siderations, on which the legislature is t.
decide. Until the legislative will be- ea
pressed, this court can only see It's duty
aud must obey the laws.
| The motion, therefore, muat,be granted
to. Cranch's REPORTS, MarbHry u. Md
son.
+ II. Feb. tern, 1906, Il, this court.
fopiniion IF Justice JoHNS0M
En- this case I have the misfortune t
dissen. from the majority of my brethEea
AS it is a ease of much interest, [ feel i
insumbsns u1en rae, 10 assign the reason
upon which | adopt the opinion, that thlI
court has not authority tc issua the wri
of habsas tsrpss now moved tor, ~
prisoners are in confinement under a CON
miimens ordered by the superior eour, Q
the district OF Celumbia, upon a cherg,