The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-16

oned, nor has the Court power in any form or by
commission IN the case ascot Of the the petitioner n'
l. THIS Court has appellate power only In cases
provided for by Congress tDurrousseau Vs. United
states, Cranch, 307) and Congress has not provi-
ded by law for review by this court Of the acts and
proceedings OF this or any other military commits
color OF authority OF the United states. Every exist
ing statutory regulation OF the appellate power OF
this Court excludes and excerpts from that jurisdtc
ton cases adJudeated by such tribunals.
2 But independently or this, whatever jurisdiction
was possessed by this military commission was not
third article OF the constitution and therefore, this
court conld and can have no appellate control or
authority over that body.
Congress only ordain and establish inferior
within STATE and their but the sdgsr
tenure OF ONCE before thew can become nyesed with any
portion Of the judicial power OF the Union There Is no ex
How, aA. Insurance Company Csnter, Pet, s45.
The appellate power OF this court cannot extend
beyond the action OF inferior courts established by
Congress to take original Jurisdiction under the con-
stitution and wnca exercise judicial power therein
conferred.-Unied States VS.. Richie, II How, 633.
ThUd FotH.-The addressing writ OF habeas
corpus to the Military Commander in Mississippi
would be an exercise Of original and not Of appel
petitioner under any order decree Of the Circuit
Court but by military power The order OF the Cir
cut Court merely LEFT the matter as II found It, the
Military Commander could discharge the prisoner at
mis- pleasure, Notwithstanding tae action OF the Cur
Fourth Poiat-The habeas corpus issued with the
certiorar, as an adjunct OF the appellate power, Is
only permitted where the custody OF the prisoner is
an essential part OF the Judgment OF decree from
Fy1h Potnt-Tne repeal by the statute of March
~, 1853 OF 80 much OF the act OF February 1867,
az granted appellate power to this Court IN cases OF
this nature was intended aud should be construed
az taking away not the whole appellate power In
cases OF nabeas corpus, but the appellate power IN
cases to which that act applied. It did not mean
merely to substitute cumbrous and inconvenlent
form o. remedy for direct and simple one. tEx
parte McCardle, Wallace, $685.
,Stgth PoifH-The statute Of 1907, providing for
military government IN Mississippi, necessarily sus-
pended the writ OF habeas corpus in that State,
which il was within the clear constitutional authO-
rity OF Congress TO do.
The Attorney General having argued that the re-
peal Of the act OF 1867 was also repeal OF all statutes
comforting jurisdiction OF The subject OF babeas cor
pus on thisc ourt, asked II there was any one who
In reply 70 i this H. Carlisle for the petitioner
means Of determining what Congress might have
intended to do; but it was certainly difficult TO tell,
when Congress had come into court and seized upon
cause sub JUDGE and stranged IL, what might not
have been the intention. But az a lawyer 1t was
easy to say what Congress really had done by apply
ing the ordinary rules OF Interpretation. And by
such means he found that Congress, by the act Of
1868, repealed only tne statute OF 1867, which had
given special jurisdiction in certain cases in addi
ton to the jurisdiction before existing. The four
teenth section OF the Judiciary act was unaffected
by the repeating act OF 1868, ana il was
this proceeding was instituted, and not under the
act OF 1861 as contended by The Attorney General.
lie nau ueaFu no argument winch nlu III the least
shown that this court was without jurisdiction
under the Judiciary act and he would be ineXcusa-
bic IN long deainlng the court In Insisting upon
jurisdiction Which 1t had reiterated and reanlrmed
time and time again.
Mr.. Carlisle spoke briefly ana without notes, max
ing the argument OF the Attorney General the basis
of his remarks. Tne excitement at first caused by
the proceedings seems to have greatly subsidized but
Few spectators having sat out the argument or
to-day.
The venerable Thomas Ewing, OF ohio, was
present until the argument closed and appeared to
be much interested
Interesting Patent Case.
No. 140.-LocbbcooI. CoDapiaisaat, rs. Money co
al, AppeI,dRts-Appe1! nom N3 Circuit court or
Massachusetts, THE interest involved in this case Is
patent upon reissue, for syringe, assigned to the
complainant in August, 1866, which, IL is alleged,
has been infringed by the appellants. The answer
is that the original paentees were not the first in
ventors OF the Improvement claimed; denial that
they had any exclusive possession in TACT in
law, under the original or the ressued patent and
an averment that the complainant has long acqui-
esced in the public and general OF the invention.
The Judgment below was for the complainant, and
tn cause thence came here.
In the original description of the improvement
patented, denomnated the Evening Syringe
the patentee claimed to have invented a
syringe having elastic sac, with flexible tubes,
terininattlg In valve boxes containing valves
arranged for the purpose Of reduction and rejection
When the sac tubes are in the same or nearly the
same, axial line. The appellants claim That these
devices with precisely the same arrangement, are
combined In what is called the barrel syringe, as
shown by testimony and exhibit In the case. The
claim In the relssued patent described q syringe
having ian elastic bulb or chamber, flexible tubes
and a suitable vavular arrangement The appel
lants insist that both the .barre syringeu and the
"Thein springer fail within the description, and
evidence and exhibit are adduced Intending to show
that the patentees had been anticipated In every
particular claimed by them IN respect of both the
original and ressued patents. The claim in the
lg I'D taa hkAa sI,n
Invention as originally described, and, as matter Of
law therefore, void. IL Is further insisted that
the original patent was neither .lnoperative nor
invalid nor the specification defective insult
Gent the reissue was without authority Of law and
that the patentees claim IS substantially, If not
technically, FOR combination OF Old parts, and
not for an Invention. IL is the arrangement or
organization which is new, II anything, and not the
invention. Syringes containing oil that is claimed
as the invention OF the patentee were long before
known and used IN this country The appellee cites
and comments on sixteen different kinds OF syrlnges
among which were those Issued by the appellant
as PRIOR inventions of the same improvement, TO
show that the claim was wholly unlike that OF any
former patent. The question Of TACT as TO priority
OF invention and the record OF evidence are volu-
minous
for the appellants and by Austin Browne ana B, Il.
Curtis Tor appellee. Secretary Boutwell, closed the
case Tor the appellants.
Jurisdi rtion in Maritime Contracts.
No. l52. Sea0atug James z. Eagle Implicated nth
Barge 4. Moore, appellant, Us. Vim. f. Fraser
OcRer or The Brig general Wolth-Appeol from TIE
circuit court for the Eastern District or MichtgaR-
This libel is nled by the owner OF the brig General
Worth, to recover damages done to the brig while In
tow OF the tug from the water between Lakes Huron
and st. Clair TO Lake Erie Both the tag and the
brig are American vessels. on the voyage the brig
was grounded on Peche Island reef, In the Detroit
river, on the Canada side, and while grounded the
barge +. Moore, also in tow by the tug at tie same
lme, ran into her stern, doing the damage COM
planned OF. In the District Court below the cause
was heard on the merits, no question OF jurisdic-
ton being raised and was decided in favor OF the
bellants. 1t then Appealed to the Circuit Court
but on the hearing the claimant and appellant aban
doned his appeal on the merits and based his
defence upon the want or jurisdiction In the
court, because the collision occurred on the
Canada side Of the boundary line. The deci-
sion below was affirmed by Circuit, and the
claimant appealed to this court, insisting that the
courts OF the United states have no extra territorial
Jurisdiction nor force 70 Create rights In foreign