Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1855-09-29
DSIED EVERY SATURDAY

lated by the common law but the courts which
are created by written law, and whose .iurisdic-
ton is defined by written law, cannot transcend
their jurisdiction. The power to award the
writ by any of the courts of the United States,
must be given by written law" EE parte
Swartwout, 4 Crauch, rs. En- parte, Barre.
2 Howard, G5 The power of the courts of
the United States to issue writs of h15pas corpus
is derived either from the 4th section of the
Act of oath Sept, 1879, or from the 7th sec
tion Of the Act Of March %, 1888 s .
The section from the act of 1889 provides,
that " all the courts Of the United States NAV
issue writs of sc5rc facias haJcls cwpas and all
other wrts not specially provided for by statute,
which may be necessary for the exercise of
their respective Jurisdictions, and agreeable to
| the principles and usa@cs OF law. And either
of the Justices of the Supreme Court, as well
as the Judges of the District Courts. NAV grant
wrlts OF hadeas corpus, for the purpose of in
| quring into the cause of commitment but
Wrts of hateaS C0rpas shall i'll no case extend
to prisoners in jail, unless they are in custody
under or by color of the authority of the Uni
ted States, or are committed for trial before
some court OF the same, or are necessary to be
brought into court to testify"
The 7th section of the Act of 2d March
1883 authorizes either Of the Justices ofthe
Supreme Court or Judge of any District
Court of the United States in addition to the
! authority already conferred by law, to grant
WrtS OF h4belS corpHs in all cases OF a prisoner
| or PRISONERS in jail or confinement, where he or
they shall be committed or coniined on or bv
authcr'.F OF law for any act done or omitted
to be done in pursuance of Il law OF the United
States, or any order, process or decree of any
Judge or Court thereof, anything i'll any act
OF Congress to the contrary notWithStand-
ing"
Now, unless the writ Of haJeas corpus issued
by the Judge OF the District Court was ncces-
Slly for the exercise Of the jurisdiction of the
sad court or was to Inquire into Il commitment
under, or by color OF the authority OF the Uni
ted States, or to relieve some one imprisoned
Tor an act done or omitted to be done, in pur-
Suancc OF a law OF the United States, the Dis
trlct Court had no power to issue it, and
commitment for contempt in refusing to answer
1t is an Illegal imprisonment, which, under our
h"deaS coTp"s act, We are imperatiyely required
to set aside.
1t cannot be pretended that the writ was
either asked for or granted to inquire into any
commitment made under or by color Of the arl-
thorlty OF the United States, Or to relieve from
imprisonment for an act done or omitted to be
done III pursuance of law Of the United
States, and, therefore, we may cOnGne cur i'll
curry solely TO the question whether it was ne
ceSsary for the exercise of any Jurisdiction Civ
en- to the District Court of the United States
for the Eastern District Of Pennsylvania
This brings Us to the question of the juriS-
diction Of the courts Of the United States, and
more particularly that OF the District Court
And here, without desiring or intending to dis
cusS at large the nature and powers of the fed
cral government, 1t Is proper to repeat what
has been so often said and what has never
been denied, that it is a government of emu
merated powers delegated to it by the several
states, or the people thereof, without capacity
to enlarge or extend the powers so delegated
and enumerated, and al its courts of Justice
are courts of limited Jurisdiction, deriving their
authority from the constitution of the United
States, and the acts Of Congress under the
constitution. Let us see what judicial power
was given by the people to the federal govern
mont, for that alone can be rightly exercised
by its courts.
The judicial power" (says the second sec
ton OF the third artcle) shall extend to all
eases III law and equity arising under this con
stitutlon, the laws of the United States, and
treaties made or which shall be made under
their authority, to all cases affecting ambassa-
doris, other public ministers and consuls, to all
eases OF admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction, to
controversies 10 which the United States shall
be party, to controversies between two or
more states between state and citizen of
another state, between citizens of different
states, between citizens of the same state claim
ing lands under grants of different states, and
between state or the citizens thereof and for
cgn states, citizens or subjects"
The amendments subsequently made to this
article have 10 bearing upon the question I'M
der consideration, nor is it necessary to exam
inc the various acts of CONGRESS comforting iu-
risCliction upon the Courts Of the United States,
for no act Of Congress can be found extending
the jurisdiction beyond what is given by the
Constitution, so far as relates to the question
we are now considering. And if such an act
should be passed it would he in direct conflict
with the 10th amended article of the consti-
tuition, which declares that "t the powers not
delegated to the United States by the Con
stitution nor prohibited by it to the states,
are reserved to the states respectively or to the
people"
If this case can be brought within the judicial
power of the courts OF the United States, it
must be either
lst. because it arises under the constitution
or the laws Of the United States.
Or, I'd. Because it is q controversy between
citizens OF different states, for it it very plain
that there is no other clause in the conStitu-
ton which, by the most latitudinarian conStruc-
ton, could be made to include it.
Did it arise under the constitution or the
laws of the United States IN order to give
u satisfactory answer to this question, it is ne
cesSary to see what the case was. .r..srr
If we confnc ourselves strictly to the record
from the District Court, we learn from it that
on the 18th day OF .baiy last, John II. Wheel
Ii. I.ntiLinLa tn iLn Hon IcLn l.