New-York daily tribune., 1866-02-22
The Martin Case,

The IrnEtin Case.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.-Before Judge SHIP
In the matter Of Robert Martin brought before the Circuit
Court OF the United States for the s1aheIn Diiast e o
OPINION.
SHIPNAS. Jon the first Of the present month
w, Of habea eS5pu. vas duly prayed i9r odI ana OSsd
petition wit alleged that the prisoner was detained IN
custody under warrant Of commitment issoeo py on %
States Commissioner wrt OF etiorqr was also gaheu py
this Cour 70 the Commissioner dig citing HIM to send up the
proceedings and evidence upon which such commitment was
On the return ofthe writ Of babeas corpus the Marshal
thed bis detention Of the prisoner by etns oft e oiur OF
<be Commissioner and also produced the body Of the prisoner
in Court.
writ though the Commissioner was in Court
with bis proceedings in the premises ready TO comply WI"
such order the Court should make thereon. !
The Di.tricAorney Of the United States appeared, and
their behalf moved TO quah the eeoa on the ground
this Court commit for the action Of the Grand Jury per
sous charged crime and tina, therefore this Court had no
On subsequent day this motion fully argued by the
District Attorney and counsel for the prisoner aud was in
sisted on behaf Government first that the Court had
power grant the writ and second that Il 1t had 1t eo1d
lawfully operate only bing up the formal record and HES
taken before the Commissioner was no part OF such
records or files and therefore within reach Of the wr
II IS proper that the motion to qoash was
finally treated by the DistrictAorney merely formal and
power of he Court through the medium of writ Of co
to bring before the evidence upon which the commit
mert made The question therefore which shall now
oonsde is whether this such power and should
exercise in the present case.
The power this Court grant the writ of habesF corpus
Il not denied and therefore need be dwet upon
Neither shall discuss much length its power to grant the
writ Of oertiordy auxiliary TO the former writ The Courts
Of the United States being Of limited though Of in
feor. Jurisdiction their must be sought for In the
uU 5. stat Large, p 8l provides That all the before
mentioned Of the United States shall have power
of scire raeids hsbeas corpus and all other
writs not specially pro id for by ssn.e yhlsh H..y
So % fer the s s ss q s nsI o M ad
.tal eisbr Justices Of the supTeme Court well as
pe judges of the District Courts shall have the power TO
grant Of bsbeas for the purpose II an inquiry
into the Of commitment. Proridd That writs Of a
bess corpus shall extend prisoners in jail unless
they custody under by color Of the authority
Of the United states are committed for a before some
court same necessary to be brought into cont
TnJel the authority conferred by this a, the writ Of habeas
repeatedly granted by the Courts Of the
uted States and 6y the judges thereof And although the
power the wr of eeytor0, not conferred by
other wrs specially provided for by staute which may
b. necessary he exercise OF their respective urdcons
and agreeable 70 the principles end usages OF law.
Accordingly the Supreme Court OF the United
The case Of Boman sSsrwout q Crsnch ~ Issued the
writ Of well that Of habeas corpus These
presidents would be quite sufic this Cont
the exercise power issue the former writ for urdc
ton Of hsbess corpus conferred upon the Supreme
and Circuit Courts by the words OF the act well as
th. power 10 all other wrs which be necessary
jurisdiction. The wit Of eeroTdri has
swsys been considered appropriate anciary
that corpus and has long been issued by the
,"ySet;on pnas the Iat,s writ effective As is stated in
Bac Abr Hsb Cor b. o "As the eeroyayi alone removes
the body the hsbes corpus alone the
cord itself but only the prisoner with the Of his com
lntnent and therefore, although upon the habeas corpus
and the thereof the Court judge Of the sui
cheney or 'nsufcieney Of the return and commit
snsnt and bail and discharge. remand the prisoner
As the case appears on the return yet they cannot
Judgment proceed upon the record Of Indictment oydr
judgment without the record itself be removed by eeToyaT
Numerous in the English Federal and Stale
found where roydr In connection with habeas corpus has
MARKS East, 137; King v Taylor Dowl and Ryl. 622
c.ses from Crench already cited Edmond j. IN People "
Martin Parkes Cnmiua Cases 49, ia the last cited
the given by the statute but language which
B indicates that the act Ia that particular declaatory OF
what the law rather then remedial
The prisoner having been committed to await the action Of
the Grand Jury In this Court have doubt that upon prn
decided this Court is fully authorized to the
wit Of et0rdTi in connection with the wit Of habea
The next question Is, upon what proceeding Of the
committing magistrate the G.,toyqyi to operate snd
ID proper to notice in the outset the functions eI
scse oy the c,on OF te Grand m ns @
spec he exercises the power, common to all ordinary
mns .s1s' ns ma prepare 40, be eaI'e 70 hold the
In neither his scton final OF bar TO further proceed
ssd on ,useispt evidence NAV be committed II he is CON-
Sned be may apply 10 the Court to reduce his bail the
@ Ie may sPy 20 ses pses roeaess OF Of the
Commoner his orders in nature Of final Judgment
OF court Of record and 1t practice for cou IN
England and n this country which party IL committed
Tor ns 70 revise just such orders as the Comroner ha
and diunsbed bail fixed by Commissioner and it, authority
has never been questioned Now order for this
telsenty exercise Its undouhted authority such matters
1t mssf able TO go behind the formal ordei Of commit
men in orcer to fix the amount OF bail ii BE- possessed
ef sufficient evidence TO what the pecGlarie Of the Of
enseeomm,ted whether breach Of law
attended with circumstances Of peculiar sggsvaton
sirociy This Court nOtlong since had the application Of
former District Attorney occasion inquire extensively
into evidence for the purpose Of liking bail swim Whose
SepedkoBs the Treasury had been enormous Indeed the
0 Of tho Judiciary Act expressly requires the court In
f1Is bail IN certain TO reEsfd THE nature and crc
stances the ofense and the edence Of
Now In order upon the evidence the Court have
the same before H. II brought voluntarily into court tb
Court have power 20 compel It's production The
witnesses are not always within its immediate retch having
given tsr testimony before the Commissioner and gone 10
distant homes In they abroad the high
and the prisoner stands committed on depostons sent
home by ccDsuls residing Ia foreign ports. It is
common practice for Courts in most places where
The law exist. bring before them the evidence pro
dOoed before the committing magistrate and upon which his
commitment Is founded end where this evidence is reduced
wiring in form Of depOstOus whether by the committing
2rste or by other competent authority this Is frequently
done by ctforar aid Of hsbss corpus But IN whatever
manner THIS evidence brought before the Court the latte,
not concluded BY the hnduss Of the committing masrate
6uslse sU n; Kjls u. AaAl LlA. La5, bs9 kAI.ss