New-York tribune., 1867-01-01
PRICE FOUR CENTS.
MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
DECISION By THE SUPREME COURT IN TlIa
MILLIGAN CASE.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, DEC, 1895
~ rcR To TaR qstBuNR.

ngncs of The Circuit Cont Of the United satcs for hs
District OF Indiana Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opns
p Miigan presented petition to the Circuit Court Of @
United States for the District q Indiana to DC discharged
The case made by the petitioner Is y thiE Magan h
Indiana and at the time Of the grievances complained
of not and never had been In the military or laval
ssi Wills at home, he was arrested by order Of GEN.
Alvin p. Hovey, commanding the Military District u
ment On the 2is Of October 1884, he brought iefcr
a military commission convened at Indianapolis, By
SDeeT al s foSHd guilty sS an and sentenced 70
hanged The sentence was ordered 70 be exe1
Sd day Of January 1865 after e proceedings OF the M
tay Commission were at an end the Circuit Court q tn
panneled Grand Jury who were charged TO inquire
whether tie laws Of the United States nad been violated
the 2h day Of JaHua por mededO @ .o d
bin of Indictment make amy presentment against Alij
gan for any offense whatever and In fact nce DIS I'M
senment made against aim by any Grand Jury Of the
United States Migan insists that said Military ccIn
preeTred or upon any charges Whatever becanse no
czen Of the United states and the State q Indiana an
lion, resident Of any Of the setes whose citizens were
a Ya % En S o 5 nnS y s
Of the United states a.. The prayer dua q 1ns psa
proved March 5, 1862 entitled An Act relating To-
Habeas Corpus and regulating judicial proceedlnE4
court and either TUNED to the proper cv thpunas
TO be proceeded against according the law Of the
were filed the the commission, the charges and
specifications the findings Of the court with the order OF
proved by the President Of tie United States and def
petition was presented and fled In open court oy the
counsel for Mligan Az the same nme the Dstrict,Att
oey OF the United States for Indiana appeared and BY
the agreement OF counsel the application was submftted
70 the court The opinions OF the Judges OF the Cfcuq
to the Supreme Court First on the facts stated in the
said petition and exhibits ought writ OF haceqs corpus 70
ton and exhibits ought the said Lambdln Mingan
10 be discharged from custady as In said pefition
fsaid petition aud exhibits the military commission
mentioned therein had jurisdiction legally 70 Try and
said petition and Exhibit is stated The Importance q
the main question presented by this record cannot ba
Government and the fundamental principles OF AneIica
times did not allow that eamess in deberaton and dis.
cussion necessary TO correct conclusion OF purely
judicial question Insss w ye snd n ws, aa
interests prevailed which are happily terpinaed Now
all others be discussed and decided without passoD
the admxture of any element not required to form
case fully sensible Of the magnitude Of the inquiry and
the necessity of full and cautious delibefation But wa
the Circuit Court OF Indiana has authority 20 certify
these questions, and that we without Jurisdiction 70
The sixth section OF the net 70 amend the judicial
system Of the United States approved Apra ~
occur before Circuit Court upon which tho
opinions Sf the Judges ss pc 0Rp0'ed s ne R1n
the same term upon che request Of either party or the,y
certified under the seal Of the Court to the Supreme Court
st their next session to be held thereafter ana shall o
the said Court be finally decided and the decision OF the
Supreme Court and their order In the premises shall ba
reinited TO the Circuit Court and be there entered on
the said judgment and order provided that nothing
therein contained sha prevent tho Court IRON proceed
We had without prejudice to the merits Is under this
prov Lsion OF law that Circuit Court has authority I'd
aqrTffV fO he
ton The inquiry therefore IS whether the case OF MiI
gan Is brought within its terms. 1t admitted at tho
bar that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to entetan
the application for the writ OF a0eas corpus ana to hea
and determine IT, and it could not be denied for the
power is expressly given the Fourteenth sectionl
Of the Jadsay ;a act Of ' a. Ten I1 S5 n
case Crane, constrled this branch OF the Judiciary
Act to authorize the Court as well as the Judges ~ ne
the writ fer thepupose Of inquirng into the eause THE
commitment, aud this construction has never - stt.
ability that certificate OF division Of opinion cu es
only In cause and that the proceeding by az aos-
s a afeT he ASai Sss snS the s
Independently OF the provisions OF the Act sssof
pettioHer bases lis claim for rsnef aId VIM, win
presently consider, the position be snsta w IT'S
of habeas corpus to the writ, and the return 10
dispose Of the case but the Court can elect TO waive tue
iaes presented n the petition me p5lSoneS Dtoss
eOs IOfs Of cSIs %ah DC the esse OF Tobias Watkins
reported in third Peters turned, was wnethes
upon the case which he lad made The Chief Justice iR
deyerns fhe opinion of the Court said the OF I'M
prsonnct is sown fully by the petitioner as it could
ought awarded the Court Satisfied that tne
The Circuit Court Of Indiana wee therefore warranted
by an expressed decision OF the Court IN refusing be wS
IN satisfied that the prisoner his showing was right
fully detained Bat t Is contended they differed about
the nwulness of the imprisonment and could render 90
judgment the prisoner remediless ana cannot nave ,he
disputed question certified under the act oi 1907 HIS
remedy complete by Es oi error respg IL ~ schar
HIM ho should be unfortunate as tQ De placed IA
ton whether he should live die, he is hopeless and
without remedy. He wishes The vital question setteT
tribunal known 10 the Constitution, and yet ie
privilege is denied Kim because the Circmo
such result WAS IN the contemplation OF the IAgis-
lature of aud the language used ~ II cannot Oe son1
sderaton was introduced 10 further the ends Of justice
by ObaiEing speedy settlement OF an Important qgss,
ton where the Judges might Dc opposed Ia opinion. Inc
act Of changed the Judicial system that inc Crcae
without this provision knored il the Judges DIFF
fered, the difference wond reinaln me QUESTION OS nn
upon she provisions of this section have been numerous
Ia the Ottle United states agt Daho w wheatoh
the Court IN holding that division of the judges on
motion Tor new trial could not be discredited say,
'that the question must be which arises in q cause
ioaSSG 70 Inc Cause Testing Mgans case by hisSe
of law is il moi apparent that II is righuny here
and that we are compelled 10 answer the questions
ON which the Judges below opposed in opiDonl I
in the sense OF Che law the pecscnss ier the T1t OK
IT, then n Is evident that the ease was pending before
the Court and chat the ueSons certicU are Oht OF W,
belonged it and matters OF right and not of dis
cretion But II Is argued that the proceeding does not
ripen into until there two parties 10 H. THIS
deny. It the of Mlign when the petition
presented 70 the Circuit Court IL would have been
the Of both parties the Court had issued the writ
and brought those who held Mligan In custody hcforo
It, webster defines the word cause" thus; suit or
action In Court; any legal process which party nsts
tes TO obtain his denand or by which he seeks his rgsn
on supposed right" and ho says This s legal, scrpt.-
raj and popular Of the word, c0iheding nearly with
from so aud action from Ago. TO urge and drive.
In legal action suit and cOnyertibo
terms. Mgan supposed he had right 20 test the val
dlty Of bis tr md senenee and the proceeding which