The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-10-29
THE YERGER CASE.
THE DECISION OF THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT
IN FULL,
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT sUs
TANNED.
ON THE WRIT OF HA.
BEAs CORPUS TO DE HEARD.

IeIBer case. IL uOcB nOtnlnS more tnQn aInrfn
the jurisdiction OF the Supreme Court to issue
the writ prayed for-that of habeas corpus.
When Yergcr shall be brought before the court
in obedience to this writ, the case will come
up on It's merits; and then the Reconstruction
acts may be pronounced unconstitutional
then, again, they may NOS be. There is abso-
lutcly nothing in tho Opinion which either
touches those acts or by1mplication even re-
fers to them. Before the case thus comes up
on It's merits, Congress may oust the Court of
It's Jurisdiction, and leave HI. Yergcr In tho
hands OF his military murdercrs. The opinion
reads as follows:
Supreme Court or the United States, December
Term, 1S68-No. II (OriQindiJ-In the 1nafto, Qr
ana ceriiorarf.SOpiiiion QJ ne Court ov ChicJ
Justice Chase.
STATEMENT. OF TIE CASE.
Upon the prayer Of tho petitioner, addressed to
Southern District OF Mississippi. writ OF habeas
corpus was directed to certain military officers
them 10 produce his body und abidc the order or
the Court.
In obedience to this writ tho petitioner wis
brought into court by Major-G neral K. S. Gran
ger, who made Ills return, in due form, certifying
the cause OF detention to he that the petitioner
cIurSc or murder by military @ y coWmsson @ 1d podc9
the act OF Congress Of the 2d OF Nurch, 1867, to
provide for the more efficient government Of the
Upon this return tho petitioner was ordered
into custody OF the marshal, and the court pro-
the petitioner was q private citizen OF the state
OF Mississippi; that he was being tried Sy tile
military commission without 3 Jury and without
prcscntment or Indictment by u grand jury; and
that he was not and never had been connected
with the army or navy OF the United States, or
with the militia In active service In time or wnr or
Upon this case the Circuit Court adjudgcd TINT
the Imprisonment OF the petitioner was lawful,
and passed An order that the writ Of hn6edS cor
pus be dismissed and that the prisoner be
mandcd to the custody Of the military otllcer by
whom he had been brought into court. to bo held
and detained for the purposes aud to answer TO
the charge SET forth In tho return.
10 obtain the reversal OF this order and relief
writ OF certf0rart TO bring here for review the pro-
ccedings OF tho Circuit Court, and for u writ OF
this court TO the officer to whose custody he was
remandcd.
IT'S EMroRrANCn.
Upon tho suggestion OF the Acknowledgement
made In view OF the importance Of the questions
which will probably arise II the case Ia brought
to hearing, we have heard preliminary argument
writ prayed for, and have carefully considered the
rcasonings which have been addressed to us.
was confined to the single point OF jurisdiction,
and am now 10 state the conclusions to which
We have come.
THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.
resolves itself necessarily Into two narrower qucs
tions:
present, to inquire Into the cause OF detention
alleged to DO unlawful, and to give rolief IL tic
detention be found to be In fact unlawful by the
i7soY
2. II, under that act. the Court possessed the
section OF the act OF March 81, 1868, us u. s.
Statutes, ~ repeating much Of the act OF Feb
rnary s. 1907, ~ o. s. Statutes, s6.) az authorizes
ccpsti' coprti from o''ui' courts 70 'he supreme
Neither OF those questions is now here. The
first has on several occasions, received very full
consideration aud very deliberate Judgment.
cause so important as that which now in
yoIes the action OF the Court seems, however. 10
which It's Jurisdiction has been hitherto main
talncd.
The great writ of haoeas corpus has been for
centuries esteemed the best and only sumcient
defence OF personal freedom.
MAGMA CHARTA
In England, after o long struggle, 1t was firmly
guaranteed by the famous haGeas corpus act or
Nay o. 1879, Is british Statutes at Large, Hal
lam Constitutional History, 1871 "for the better
securing OF the liberty OF the subject" which, AZ
Blackstone snys, "ls frequently considered as
mentaries, ia5l V '-'O' ~
claimed as among the immcmorlal rights des-
cendcd to them from their ancestors.
Naturally, therefore, when the Confederatcd
Colonies became the United Statcs, and the form
stion of a common government engaged their de-
Iiherations In convention, this great writ found
pcrnanent sanction Ill the Constitution. That
sanction Ii in these words:
"Ihc privilege Of the writ OF habeaS corpus
HhaIl not be suspended uncAs when, In cases or
rebellion Or invasion, the public safcty may re-
qulroit."
The terms OF this provision necessarily imply
judicial action. In England all tue higher courts
hardly supposable that under the new govern
ment, founded on more liberal lcns and princl-
Pies, any court would be, Intentionally, closed 10
Them.
We ind, accordingly, that the First Congress-
under the Constitution, after defining by yarious
risdictOn OF the District Courts, the Circuit
Courts, and the Supreme Court In other cases,
the before mentioned courts ofthe United States
slip 1 have power to Issue wrlts OF scip hicfaS,
n9oys G"s bv siata nn a wc GdSr Wrs Inc not spssn
for the exercise OF their resp ,ctive jurisdictions
and agreeable to the principles and usagcs OF
1t was further provided 'rnat either OF the JUS
tlces OF the Supreme Court, as well aB the Judges
Of the District Court, shall have power to grant
qlry int0 the cause of commitment, provided
that writs OF habeas corpus shall In no case en-
dy under by color Of the authority of the Unit
cd States or are committed for trial before some
court OF the same or are necessary to be brought
That this Court Ia OF the courts to which tho
power to issue writs OF hdbeds corpus Is express
been questioned. 1t would hsve been, Indeed, a
remarkable anomaly II this Court, ordained by
the Constitution for the exercise, In the United
States, Of the most important powers, In civil
cases, OF all tho Highest courts uf England, had
been denied, under Constitution which nbso-
lntcly prohibits tho suspension OF the writ, OK
eept under extraordinary eNigcncics, that power
IN cases Of alleged unlawful restraint which the
habeas corpus act OF Charles IL expressly declar.
cd those courts TO possess.
APPKILATE AND ORIGINAL JURIsDICTIoN.
But tho power vested In this Court Is, In an i'm
portant particular, unlike that possessed by the
English courts; The Jurisdiction OF this court is
conferred by tho Constitution, and L. appellate;
whereas TINT OF the English courts, though de.
clarcd and defined by statute, is derived from the
common law, ana Is original.
The judicial power OF tho United States extends
TO all Cases In law and equity arising under the
Constitution, the laws OF tho United States, and
treaties made under their authority, and to large
classes OF cases determined by tho character Of
the partloao or the Duture OF, the controversy.
>. Tint part OF this judicial power vested in this
Court is defined by tho Constitution In these
words:
"ln oil cases affecting ambassadors, other pub.
llc ministers, and cOnsnls, and those In which
State shall be Il Darty- tho Sunrenna Ssonrt ahou