Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1845-01-09
". s. supreme Court.


Erpdrte Application Of II. w. Dorr for a tcrit Of
Habeas Corpus.--Thos w. Dorr was convicted before
the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, at March term,
1914, of treason against the State Of Rhode Island,
and sentenced to the State Prison for life. And it ap-
pears from the afidavits of Francis c. Treadwell, a
counsellor at law of this curt, and others, that per-
sonal access to Dorr In his confinement, TO ascertain
whether he desires a writ of error to remove the
record of his conviction TO this Court has been refus-
ed. On this ground the above application has been
made. Have the court power to isse a writ of Habe-
as corpus IN this case! This Is & preliminary ques-
ton, and must be first considered. The original lu-
risdlction of this court is limited by the constitution
to cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers,
and conSus, and where a State is a party. Its appel
lative jurisdiction is regulated by acts of Congress.
Under the common law 1t can exercise no jurisdiction.
As this case cannot be brought under the head of ORR
ginal jurisdiction, if sustainable, 1t must be under the
appellate power. The 18th section of the Judiciary
act of 1889 provides that the courts of the United
States shall have power to issue writs of scire tacids,
habeas corpus, and all other writs not specially provi-
ded for by statute, which may be necessary = for the
exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agree
able to the principles and usages of law. And that
either of the Justices Of the Supreme Court, as well
as Judges of the District Courts, shall have power to
grant writs of hGbedS corpus, for the purpose OF an IN.
curry into the cause of commitment. Prorided, that
the writs of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to
prisoners in Jail, unless where they are in custody un-
der, or by color Of the authority Of the United States, or
are committed for trial before some court of the same,
or are necessary to be brought before the Court TO tes-
tify.' In the trial of Dorr it was insisted that the
law of the State under which he was prosecuted, was
repugnant the Constitution of the United States.
And on this ground a writ of error Is desired under
the 25th section Of the Judiciary act above named :
that, as the prayer for this writ can only be made by
Dorr, or by some one under his authority, and as ac-
cess to him in prison is denied, it is insisted that the
writ to bring HIM before the Court is the only means
by which the Court can exercise jurisdiction in his
case by a writ Of error. Even if this were admitted,
vet the question recurs whether this Court has power
to issue the writ to bring him before it. That ii has
no such power under the common law is clear. And
it is equally clear that the power no where exists, I'M
less it be found in the 18th section above cited. The
power given to the Courts in this section to issue
writs of scire tGcias, hGbeGs corpus, &C., as regards
the writ of hGbeaS corpus, is restricted by the provlso
to cases where a prisoner Is sin custody, under or
by order of the authority of the United States, or has
been committed for trial before some Court of the
same, or is necessary to brought into Court TO testi-
fy." This is so clear from the language of the section,
that any illustration of it would seem to be unneces-
sary. The words of the proviso are unamblguous.
They admit of but one construction, and that they
qualify and restrict the preceding provisions Of the
section is indisputable. Neither this nor any other
Court of the United States, or Judge thereof, can issue
a hdbedS corpus to bring up a prisoner who is in Gus
tody under a sentence or execution of a State Court
for any other purpose than to be used as a witness.
And it is immaterial whether the Imprisonment be un-
der civil or criminal process. As the lGo noT stands,
an indiuidudl pho may be indicted an a Circuit Court,
for treason against the United States, as beyond The
porer Of Federal Courts and Judges, if he be an GUS
tody under authority of a State. Dorr Is in confine.
ment under the sentence of the Supreme Court Of
Rhode Island consequently this Court has no power
to issue a hdbeds corpus to bring him before it. His
presence here is not required as a witness, but to sig
2 Nifty to the Court whether he desires a writ of errol
r to bring before this tribunal the record of his convic
ton. The counsel in this application prays for a wri
of error, but, as it appears from his own admission
that he does not act under the authority of Dorr, bu
at the request of his friends, the prayer cannot b
granted. In this view it is unnecessary to decid
whether the counsel has stated a case which, with tn
authority of his client, entities him 10 a writ of error
The motion for a habedS corpus is overruled.
d Er pdrte-h the matter Of Thomas Wilson Dorr
s on petition for a urit Of hGbeaS corpus, or for a Wri
Of error to the Supreme Court IF the State of Rhod
e ISland.-On consideration of the motion made by Nh
S Treadwell, of counsel for the petitioner, on a prio
n day of the present term of this Court, to wit, OF
Wednesday, the 1lth inst, and of the argument @
counsel in support of the motion thereupon had. ]
e is now here ordered, and a~djudged by this Court, tina
the said motion be, and the same is hereby overruled
r Delivered by Mr.. Justice Mclean, Dec. n, 1874