Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1863-07-14
gelni- 4Drrklu 6tanhara.
THE HABEAS CORPUS.
In the Supreme Court Of, North Carolina, June
Term, 1868.
IN THE MATTER OF BRYAN.

IN THE MATTER OF BRYAN.
Governor Vance having informed the Judges tina
the Secretary of War puts his objection to the re
lease of citizens who have been arrested as con
scripts by the officers of the Confederate States after
they had been discharged by the State tribunals on
wrlts Of hGbeas corpus, upon the ground tna'
the courts of the State had no jurisdiction
over the subject the Court directed the ques
ton to be argued preliminary to the diSpostlon
of the many applications before It by wrlts OF hG
6eas corpus, and assigned day AS the organ Oh
the Court addressed a communication to His Elk
.eelleney the President of the Confederate States
informinS him of the fact and that the Court would
be pleased to hear an argument by the Attorney
General of the Confederate States or any other gen.
tleman ofthe bar he might appoint for the purpose
The question has been fully argued by Mr.. Moore
and Mr.. Winston in support of the jurisdiction, and
by Dir. Strong District Attorney of the Confede.
rate States, with whom YVES associated Mr.. Bragg,
against the jurisdiction.
We have devoted to the subject that temperate
and mature deliberation which its great importance
called for and the Court is of opinion that it has u
risdiction and is bound to exercise it. and to dis
charge the citizen whenever it appears that he is
unlaWfny restrained of his liberty by an officer oil
the Confederate States. If the restraint is lawful
the Court dismisses the application and remauds
the party. IL on the other hand, the restraint is
unlawful, the Court discharges him. The lawful
ness unawfulness of the restraint necessarily in
wolves the construction of the act Of Congress under
which the officer justifes the arrest and the naked
question is, by whom is the act of Congress to be
construct? by the Secretary of War and the SUBJ
ordinate officers he appoints in order to carry the
CONSUMPTION acts into effect or by the Judiciary {?
or if the latter have the State Courts jurisdiction
over the subject? This, as was well remarked by
Mr.. Strong, is dry question of Constitutional law,
and its decision would not be influenced by collate
raj disturbing causes.
The jurisdiction of the State Courts over the sub
ject is settled in this State and has been so consd
cred far back as the traditions of the bar carry
US. In 1515, Judge Taylor reported in I'd N. Car
DINA Law Reply, 81, Lewis case, decided by the
Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in which the
Court upon hG5edS corpus to an officer of the
United States, took Jurisdiction and discharged
soldier OIL the ground that the enlistment was not
Vadb by the proper construction of the act of Con-
greSS That decision was concurred III by the bench
and the Oar in this State and the Jurisdiction has
ever since been exercised by our Courts and Judges
and treated settled until the present term of the
Court In Mason's case, the jurisdiction was exer-
csed and soldier of the United States was dis
charged by the Court. 1st Murphy 336-1SO9)
See also N. Carolina Law Repos'y, note. We have
traditions OF other cases tried by single Judges but
no reports were made of them About 1917 while
Oh the Superior Court bench, exercised the uris-
dietion, and soldier was brought before me at
Smrthve, on writ directed to the officer in COM
lnand at Fort Caswel-Capt. ChIldS who after
wards SO highly distinguished himself in Mexico
In the in .5ter of Mills, who claimed exemption as
shoemaker during the past winter, in my letter to
Judge Battle and Judge Manly, asking their opin-
ion to the construction of the CONSUMPTION and
exemption acts, all three of US took it for granted
that the question of jurisdiction was settled and in
the opinlon filed ty in that and all of the other
cases which have been before me, set forth that
the power of the State Judges to put construction
upon acts OF Congress SO far as they involve the
rights of the citizen las distinguished from mere
military regulations) is settled and all of the other
Judges in this State who have issued writs of ha-
6cIs corpus have so treated it-(Judges Battle,
French, Heath and Shipp.)
The question has been considered as settled in the
other States, and their Courts have in many cases.
assumed and exercised the jurisdiction and it has
been conceded by the Courts of the United States
Chancellor Kent, 1st VOL, 400, says: 1.-The oues-
ton was therefore settled in favor of a concurrent
jurisdiction in that case, and there has been decs
ion and practice by the Courts of other States"-
In the note many cases are referred to. Hurd, in
his treatise on ha6eds corpus, under title - incur
rent jurisdiction" refers to and collates a great
many cases which fully support his conclusion -
1t may be considered settled that State courts may
grant the writ in all cases of illegal confinement I'M
der the authority of the United States" So if any
question can be settled by authority, the concur
rent Jurisdiction of the State Courts must be trea-
ted as settled 1t must be presumed that this long
series of Ises which establish the concurrent uris-
dictiOn of the State Courts and their power to put
q construction on acts of Congress when necessary
to the decision of case before Them is supported
by the N st clear and satisfactory reasoning and it
would DC IDLE to attempt to add any thing to what
has been said by the many able Judges who have
discussed the question. l will content myself by
making few extracts from some of the opinions.
Ntlcb -. - =
Brightly Reports 269, Gin 1879 says: 1t is to be
observed that the authority of the State Judges in
cases Of IDEAS corpus emanates from the several
States, and not from the United States. In order
to destroy their jurisdiction therefore, it is neces-
slry to show, Aot that the United States have given
them jurisdiction, but that Congress possesses and
have exercised the power of taking away that jurs-
diction which the States have vested in their own
Judges" Southland j., IN State Brearly 2 South.
555, Q6l9O says: at will require in me great
struggle, both of feeling and judgment before 1
shall be prepared to deny the jurisdiction of the
Stale and say that she has surrendered her. indie
pendence questions like this, and that her high
est judicial tribunal for such purposes is 4ncapable
of nquirifg into the Imprisonment of her citizens,
no matter how gross or illegal it may be, provided
it be by the agents of the United States and under
color of their laws. Have we lost the iurisdic-
ton because we cannot eonStrue and determine the
extent and operations of acts of Congress? Weare
Often compelled to construe them they are our
supreme law when made in conformity with the
Constitution. Is it because the United States is a
party? How does she become party on such
question? Is she party for the purpose of des-
potism, whenever a man who holds a commission
from her shall, without legal authority in viola
ton of her own statutes inure imprisOn or Cypress
the citizen Surely not" In Slocum vs. Mayberry,
I'd Wheaton, page l, QS17,) Slocum was surveyor
for the port of Newport IN Rhode Island ard under
the directions of the collector had seized the Eve
nus" lying in that port with cargo ostensibly
bound to some other port in the United States
who was the owner of the cargo, brought
an action of repevn in the State Court for the res
toration of the cargo. Slocum put his defence on
the ground that he was an officer of the United
States and the seizure of the vessel and cargo was
authorized by an act of Congress, and denied the
jurisdiction of the State Court The Court took
jurisdiction and decided in favor of Mayberry, on
the ground that the act of Congress- by its proper
construction, only authorized the seizure and de-
tentlon Of the vessel and did not embrace the cargo
consequently the officer had detained the CARGO