The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-08-25
OPINION OF JUDGE DUNLOP.


sought and obtained for publication opinion recently
delivered by Judge Dunlop Of the circuit court Of this
District in which substantially the question is Dis
cussed:
Er pqte Richard Bad2s on habsas corpus
The return in THE ease presents all the facts material TO
lis decision and they uncontested
II appears that the prisoner Bddle was enlisted as
into the naval service OF the United States on tne
2st of October 1852 for the period of three years bis
term OF service expire the 2lst October 1850 He
tried by naval general courtmarua5 convened al
Norfolk, in the State of Virginia upon charge Of @ma
tnous conduct and language committed on board snip
of the OF Ereericksadt island Of Santa Cruz, ON
the 30th january 1854 convicted by said cournar
tie and sentenced to imprisonment and labor in the peni
Tertiary Of the District Of Columbia for ten years The
proceedings Judgment and sentence OF the court were sub
mtted to, and approved by the President Of the United
States on the 18th March, 1854 by whom the mprson-
ment was miugaed so as 10 reduce its term and make
expire the 2lst October 1855. The jurisdiction Of the
courtmaral TO try and convict the prisoner and to pun
sh the offence charged denied but Is insisted the
court exceeded its authority in sentencing the prisoner TO
Imprisonment and labor in the pententary of the District
of Columbia.
The act Of Congress of the 23d April, 1900 for the
better government of the navy of the United States art-
Gle 18th is in these words "lf any person in the navy
shall make or attempt to make any mutinous assembly
be shall conviction thereof by conrt-marta suffer
death and if any person aforesaid shall utter any se
dtous mutnous words shall conceal or connve at
any mutinous seditous practices or shall treat WIN
contempt his SUPERIOR being the execution of his office
&c &c, he shall be punished at the d'scrdo Of court
martial"
The prisoner by his counsel maintains that the dscre
tionary power to punish conferred in general terms in the
above clause is limited to such imprisonment IS kown
and usual the naval service and that this has been
the uniform construction of statute Of the 23d April
1900 and of the English statute of the ed George H. Of
which ours in this particular is almost copy 1t IS vain
in to discuss and decide this question: because II does
not lawfully belong to this court IL arose properly IN the
progress of the trial before the naval conmarta whose
duty it was decide it, and they have done So
| There is power in this court 10 review and reverse
81, lnafnto
undertake to saynor we coateray and upon habeas
corpus acquire any control the conviction and SEN
of the naval courtmaral which we do not possess
directly by appeal or writ OF error An appeal lies 10 the
President of the United States who has approved and con-
med the sentence Of the naval court and no ether tbu-
nal is by law visited with any power OF Tepisioa
The conviction and sentence of the naval court ap
proved is conclusive and binding this court and must
be regarded valid Judgment rendered pursuant to the
laws OF the United States The principles above stated
think plainly announced by the Supreme Court OF
tho United States in the OF I. Watkins on habsas
/ corpus in Sd Peters, 20l, 202, 203
The discharge OF I. Watkins from Imprisonment was
sought before the Supreme Court the ground that the
circuit Of this District had exceeded its authority in
holding offence to exist and be punishable by mpris-
ohent which the Indictment its face showed to be no
offence knopn TO the ldp But the Supreme Court by
Chief Justice Marshall said that writ of error would lie
to the judgment of the circuit court of this District IN
criminal case that the circuit court court OF gene
raj criminal jurisdiction that il any offence had been
committed it its province TO say So and that II II
erred in holding that to be an offence which offence
IN lac the Supreme Court could give relief In the lar
guage of the Chief Susce, Marshall Sd Peters 2 20s
.Ths statute ha5eds corpus acl c,epts from those who
entitled to its benefit ersons committed for felony
treason plainly expressed in the warrant az e as persons
coapeted 81 erecution.h
The exception of persons convicted applies particularly
to the application under consideration The petitioner
is detained in prison by virtue of The Judgment OF
which court possesses general and Enai jurisdiction in
criminal Can this Judgment be re-examned upon
writ OF Aobeo cpns This writ is has been sd in the
natue OF writ oferror which brings body
Of
eddy inquire into the sutciency of that cause but be t
judgment Of court Of competent jurisdiction especially
judgment draten By iae from the revision oths court is
not that Judgment in itself sufficient cause2 Can the
court upon this writ look beyond the Judgment and
examine the charges which il was rendered udg-
ment in its nature concludes the subject which = il
rendered and prononnces the law of the case The ndg
mcnt OF court OF record, whose uriadctlon is final
az conclusive all tie world as the Judgment of t.
court woui De Ms as conclusive this court as 1t Is
on other courts puts end inquiry concerning the
fact by deciding it. The counsel for the prisoner admit ht
application of these principles 10 in whch he in
dctnen alleges crime cegrznbic in the by which
the judgment pronounced but they deny their app
cation to case in which the indictment charges of
fence not punishable rimaay according TO the lao Of IA
fdndl But WiM Dh roprie this court look into hs
Indictment We have no power to examine the proceed
ings writ of error and 1t would be strange if under
color OF writ to befate an individual from ahaNfu
imprisonment we could substantially reverse Jt4gnen
which the iaro has piacfa beyond control IN i'm
prisonmem under judgment cannot be unlawful miles,
hat gei be an absolute nuity and il, not nullity
though it should Be erroneous
}, And again If the offence be punishable by law tina
court is competent 10 inict the punishment The jndg
ment Of such tribunal has all the obligation which TIL
Judgment of any tribunal can have To determine whether
the offence charged in the indictment be legally punsha
bic or not is among the most unguestonable of its pow
ers and duties The decision Of this question lie cxecs
Of jurisdiction whether the judgment be for against Tho
prisoner
The Judgment is equally binding in the and il
the other, and must remain in full force unless
regularly by superior court capable of reversing it,
}, And again "The Judgment of the circuit court in
criminal case is, of ITSELF evidence of its legality
requires for its support inspection Of the Indictment
which it is founded. The law trusts that in thu
whole subject and has not confined to this the pow
er of revising its decisions We usurp that power
by the nstrumontaty OF the writ Of hobeas corpus The
Judgment informs that the commitment Is legal and witt
that information it is duty to be satisfied
Committed for contempt in the circuit court of this Dis
rict so in the case payte Kearney, q Wheaton, AZ
40, A. 45 Judge Story, in delivering the opinion of h,
supreme Court said is also TO be observed that
is no question here but that this commitment was mad,
by court Of competent Jurisdiction and in the exercis,
of an unquestionable authority. The only objection
Is, not that the court acted beyond is jurisdiction
but that it erred in ITS judgment Of The lar applicable III
case H. then, TO give any relief in this case il ii
by revision Of the opinion of the court given in thu
course OF criminal trial. and thus asserting right &c
control its proceedings and take from them the concusp
effect which the law intended to give them. If this
i were an application for hdbeas corpus after jud1
nieht on an indictment for offence within the iu
risdicton of the circuit court it could hardly be main
tanned that this court could revise such Judgment on
The proceedings which led TO it. il aside and dis
charge the prisoner There is in principle distinction
hnfus t,A4. Al.