Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1807-03-06
TwaoI 40. 4os,i

lE,ssSF s43kg desc 8 Isl =
Iaiure pfihe union, and itcai, ercsc;se
appellant jurisdietinn. ia no case unlsss
Iexpressly autherised 70 do % by the laws
| sofrongrsss. 1T understand che. case
Of Marbury and Madison, Ii mainfains
this doctrine 10 iis fun s1sent.s l;cannot
See hoy i could ever have been contro-
II Is ineuEbet then, I prrsume. on
the connsel 10 order 70 maintain their
motion, 20 prove thar the issuing of this
writ Is an act within the power sor ibis
court insits original Jurisdiction. or sliae
in ito appellate capacity, the power isex-
pressly given by the laws of congress-
!, This tits attempted 20 do. By the fonr.
teen,h and thirty-third seetiops of the
judiciary act andthe cases Of Hamilson
and Burford, which occurred IN fhis
court, the formerin 1926, The later IN
i806. :fg. =. r vss3sy,s.@ nj ). fEF
How farther pesition Is supported by
that act and those cases, viii now BE- the
subiectofmy inquiry. 5.7
IA With d. very unnecessary display Of
energy and pathos, this court has been
imperatively called upon to extend 10 the
prisoners the benefit ofpreeedent. Tam
Cir, very far, from denying the general
authority Of adjudications. Uniformity
10 decisions is often IS inportant a. their
abstract justice. But deny that asonrs
Is precluded from the right or exempted
from the necessity of examining into the
correctness or consistency of It's own de.
cisiens or those OF any other tribunal.
I'll need precedent to support me in this
doctrine, viii cite the sample of this
court, which ia the case Of the II s. W;
Moore, February 1905, acknowledged
that 10 The case Of the u, s. vs.. Simnns,
February 1905, il had exercised juris-
diction II did not possess. sStrangs ine
deed would Be the doctrine. than an mad.
verteney once committed BY i conrt shall
eyer after impose on Il the necessity of
pefsisting 10 It's error. A case that CAM
not be tested BY principle is not law, and
in . thousand instances hare such. eases
been declared 30 by courtsof Justice +,
The Claim Of the prisoners % founded
On precedent stands thus. The case of
Hamilton vas strikingly similar to the
present.--The prisoners had been com.
mitted By order Of the district Judge on q
charge OF high treason. A writ Of Ia.
beas corpus .Tas issued b. ths supreme
court, aud the prisoner bailed by their
order. The case of Barford was also
strietly parallel 70 the present but the
writ in the latter case having been issued
sexpressly on the authority ofths former,
lie Is presumed that it gives no additional
forceto the claim of the prisoners, but
must res, on'the strength Of the case up
on which the court aeted.
happears @ my mind that the case OF
Hamiiion bears upon the face Of It eyi.
.dshre Of its being sntitled to little .consi4
Iteration, and that the authority Of twas
annihilatedby the very able decision in
Mafbnry vs.. Madison. In this case il
was Decided that congress- co1ld not vest
in the supreme court any, Original pow.
ETA beyond those to which this court IS
restricted by the constitution. That an
act Of congress seating in this court the
power 10 issue writ Of mandamus IN a
case NOT within their original jnrisdieti-
on, and in Which they were no. called
upon to exercise an appellars jurisdiction,
was Unconstitutional and, yeid in the
case Of Hamileon 'the;eo does NOT as
signthe reasons on which it founds It's
dscision, but il Is fair TO presume that
-they adopted the idea which apPesrs TO-
have been admitted by the district attor-,
ney 10 Ills argument, to wit: that this,
court possessed acopcorrent power with
The district court i'd admitting to bail.
Now concurrent power in such a case
must be an original power. and the prin-
ciple in Marbury and Madison applies
~ much tothe issuing ofja habeas corpus
sin case Of treason Is to the issuing ola
mandamus in q case NOT, more remote
0risdictionofthise
Having thus disemharrassed the questi-