New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-10-09
THE COURTS.
THE UNITED sTATEssUPREME {

THE UNITED sTATESSUPREME COURT.
THE YERGER CAsE-LIABILITY OF MILITARY
OFFICERS FOR PROPERTY SEIZED DURING
THE REBELLION.
WASHINGTON, Oct. SIN the Supreme Court
of the United States this morning Col Philips of
for NJ Yerger, read the agreement entered into
between the Attorney and the counsel for the
defense In July last providing that the case shal DC
PETITIONS for writs OF habeas corpus and eerorar ALSO
that the be set for hearing on Friday next Az
woud be- sed in order that he might have time to prop
erly present the case as he desired hst 70 argue the
question the Jurisdiction OF the Court Mr. Carlisle
for the defense trusted the whole would be argued
and settled at time and not by instalments The
tiee that on Monday day would be fixed for argument
The following cause from the District Court for the
seset c Of coIdWe decease
plaintiff in error, agt. Irwin W. Fuller-The defendant
here was Of the army, and acting in
his military capacity SUCH while stationed In Arkan.
seized certain cotton, the property OF the piant
subsequently, the defendant being within the turlsdc
ton Of the Crawford County Circuit Court TOT the STATE
s' Msy S s N TSe
ing no appearance Judgment for 1890 was rendered
ant apeeaped and moved to set aside judgment alleging
meritorious defense He also filed motion to dsniss
the case for the that at the time or the alleged
trover he was military officer and acquired possession
and disposed OF the cotton az such Officer under direction
United States, and not for his own use and benefit;
that he was protected from prosecution by orders
the land. Failing to obtain a new trial, and also
in his efforts to dismiss the action the Defendant pe
the Western District of that state under the act Of
March 1862 for writ Of or other process TO re-
OF the United States The accordingly removed
and coming for trial. plaintiff III error declined to join
issue, and permitted Judgment to be rendred by default
dismissng the with costs and directing that the
SAID Scarlet take nothing for his false clanor Pending
the hearing there, however, plaintiff In error moved
the Court to dismiss the canse, submitting
that the Court had no authority, under the
lnuC tffntfn and laWQ Al
order the issuance of the writ which bene overrued
aud Judgment being rendered by default an appeal was
taken 10 this Court the only question presented being
the consutonalIty OF the fifth section OF act OF the
On the part Of plaintiff in error 1t contended that
this Ia not within the class OF cases OF which the
on Which bas DISPOSED Of and vested the entire arde
OF those Courts and left nothing for Congress TO
give The Constitution gives original Jurisdiction
tain cases to the Supreme Court appellate
Jurisdiction; and IL Is perfectly immaerial how many
Courts Congress may establish, they never have
jurisdiction OF not embraced within the
classes mentioned in that instrument The entire
judicial jurisdiction thus vested but IL Congress,
establishing Courts create specify new cases,
give these Courts jurisdiction Of cases not included IN
the Constitution then the Constitution failed TO vest the
Jurisdiction ALL Aud the Constitution failed To vest
the jurisdiction. there is none, for Congress- as well as
the Courts, lives by and under the Constitution Is
Of either class, does 1t approximate 10
either class therein named IL involves no right or ques
the Constitution under act OF Congress- or
under treaty IL involves no questions between staee
citizens of different States 1t Is not national In It's
character III respect but purely local action on
the part OF one individual against another Tor
damages allowed under the law of he state The defe
dant in error insists that the regulation OF the Federal
Judicial belongs exclusively TO Congress, under
Article Ill, Sections and OF the Constitutions,
aud State authority executive, legislative or Judicial,
DISPUTE inerposc 10 defeat a. The power to
move from state 10 United States Courts
exercised early 1882 and the first attempt OF
State Court Ia deny the right was promptly rebuked by
Court, IN Gordon ag Souges l6 Peters g Satdtes
similar that of March 3, 1858, found scattered
throughout national legislation. and their consutu-
tionalty II unquestOned. The cause argued by
Messrs Chapman HOsner for defendant in error, and
submitted printed briefs OF A H. Garland, for the
plaintiff IN error
No u.s. original Benz amn Brown ct al petitioners. This
Is the matter Of the petition for habeas corpus OF certain
parties charged with murder in the state OF Texas, and
now being tired about being tried by Military Com
mission Motion for leave 10 file petition for writ OF
habeas corpus and certcrari granted The Court init
mated decision the would be made on Mon
day.
Messrs. u. W. Barzza OF Texas A. ". Sharlt Of Mis-
and G. A LOchrane OF Georgia were admitted 10
the bar. The Court adjourned I'LL Monday.