The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-10-29

ment
construction OF this part OF the Constitution.
IL was pronounced In 1903 In 1907 the same
construction was given to the provision Of the
fourteenth section relating to the writ Of hdbeds
corpus, in the case OF Boilman ana Swarswout.
The power to issue the writ had been previously
exercised in Hamit0n's case, 1875, t3 Cr, 44S,)
and in Rurfords case, 1906, IN neither OF which
cases does the distinction between appellate and
ORIGINAL jurisdiction appear to have been made
In the case of BollInan and Swartwout, how
ever. the pont was brought distinctly before the
court, the nature Of the jurisdiction was careful
The Question then determined has net since been
drawn into controversy.
DOCTRINE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The doctrine Of the Constitution, and Of the
cases thus far, may be summed Ep in these pro-
positions: =.
be extended BY Congress toany er cases than
those expressly defined by theo1 stitution.
2. The appellate jurisdiction of This court con-
fered by the Constitution 20 an Ottsd other
States. -.
executions. and must be exerSSed under such re-
gulations as Congress, In tne xerclse OF lts dis'
4. Congress not only has excepted writs
Of nabeas corpus and naands slas from this ap-
pellate jurisdiction, but has Expressly provided
for the . exercise Of this iuris 'l0n by means OF
We come. then, to consider tne first great ques
tion made in the case now before us.
We shall assume, upon the eutnorlty OF the de-
cisions referred to- what we should hold were the
ouestion now for the first time presented to u.s.
that in proper case this court, under the act OF
l7So. and under oil the subsequent acts giving
jurisdiction in cases OF ndoeay corp,aS may, nay IN
cisions of inferior courts OF tne united states,
and relieve from unlawful Imprisonment authorlz-
cd by them except in cases WITHIN some nmlta-
tIon OF the jurisdiction OF Congress.
It remains to inquire whether the case before
us is proper one for such interpretation. Is II
within any such Limitation IN 0ther WORDS, can
this court inquire into the lawlulness OF deten-
ton. and relieve from 1t, II found unlawful, when
the detention complained Of not by civil au-
thOrity under commitment, nade by an inferior
court for trial In civil court, put ny miltary ON
GERS for trial before military tlounal, aIter ian an
Examination into the cause OF detention by the
inferior court resulting In an order remanding
the prisoner to CUSTODY ~
II was insisted. In argument, that ito bring
case within the appellate 1nTisaietlon OF tsls
court In the sense requisite 70 enable 1t to award
the writ OF haoe1S corpus, under the judiciary
act. it is necessary that the commitment should
appear to have been by tribunal whose decf
sions are subject to revision by this court"
This proposition seems to assert not only that
the decision to be revised upon hdoeds corpus
must have been made by court OF the united
States subject 10 the ordinary appellate lurlsdic
must have resulted In an order OF commitment TO
civil authority, subject to the control Of the conrt
making IL.
The first branch of this proposition has certain,
" some support In Metzger'B ease, 10 HOW, 176D
In which 1t was held that an order OF commit
ment made by q district Judge at chambers can
not be revised here by hdoeds corpus. This case,
as was observed by Mr.. Justice Nelson In kalnes
case. "a How, l03,) stands alone; and 1t may
admit OF question whether it can be entirely re.
conciled with the proposition, which we regard
as established upon principle and authority, that
the appellate jurisdiction by hdbedS corpus ex.
tends TO all cases OF commitment by the JUDICIAL
authority Of the United States not excepted from
1t by Congress-.
here. The action which we are asked to revise
was that of q tribunal whose decisions are SUBJ
iect to revision BY this court In ordinary modes
We need consider, Therefore, only the second
branch OF the pr0poetion namely, that the aotion
Of the inferior court must have resulted IN COM
ence drawn from 1t that no relief can be had here
by habeas corpus from imprisonment under mill
tary authority, TO which the petitioner may nave
been remanded by such court.
This proposition certainly. is not supported Dy
authority In Kaine's case all the judges, except
one asserted directly or indirectly, the ]urlsdic-
tion Of this court to give rellel IN case Mnere
the detention was by order Of United states
commissioner The lawfulness OF the detention
had been examined by the Circuit Court for the
Southern District Of New York upon writ OF hd-
0eds corpus, and the court had dismissed the
writ and remanded the prisoner TO custody. IN
this court relief was denied on the merits but the
Jurisdiction was denied by one Judge only. And
it is difficult to find any substantial ground upon
which Jurisdiction in that ease can be afhrmed
and denied In this.
was confined In the penitentiary, under q SEN
tence of death, commuted by the President into
sentence OF Imprisonment for life. He obtained
writ OF hdbedS corpus from the circuit court OF
the District Of Columbia; was brought DeIore tne
court, and was remanded to custody. He then
sued out writ Of habedS corpus from this court,
and his case was fully considered here No OBJ
lection to the Jurisdiction seems TO nave been
taken In argument, though there, as mere, II was
evident that the actual imprisonment at the time
of the petition for the writ was not under the
direction of the court by whose order the prison
er was remanded, but by different and distinct
authority. -.
tis again dssented, and on the poins OF 1urisdlc-
tion Mr.. Justice Campbell concurred with him.
The other judges, though all except one, were OF
agreed In maintaining the jurisdiction OF the
court. Judge Curtis, who regarded the question
as left undetermined In Kaine's case, admitted
that the Jurisdiction was asserted In this, and
stated the ground OF Judgment amrmlng 1uris;
dction to be that, "ss the Circuit Court has had
the prisoner before IT, and has remanded MIN,
this court, by a writ of hdoeas corpus, may s1-
anime that decision, and see whether IL be erro-
neouS or not"
dcton In cases similar to that now before the
court has not hitherto been questioned.
THE ARGUMENT CONSIDERED.
We have carefully considered the argument
against II, made In this case, and are satisfied
that the doctrine heretofore maintained Is sound.
The great and leading intent OF the Constitu-
ton and the law must be kept constantly In view
upon the examination OF every question OF con-
struction.
That intent, In respect 10 the writ OF hdoeas
corpus is manifest. 1t Is, that every citizen may
be protected by judicial action from unlawful I'M
prisonment. To this end as has been shown, the
act of 1889 provided that every court OF the united
States should have power to issue the writ me
Jurisdiction thus given by law to the Circuit and
District Courts s original; that given by the Con-
stitution and the law to this court Is appellate.
Given in general terms, 1t must necessarily ex-
tend to all cases to which the judicial power OF the
United States extends other than tnose expressly
excepted
AS limited by the act Of 1885, 1t did not extend
to cases of imprisonment after conVlctlon under
sentences OF competent tribunals; nor to any
prisoners in iail unless in custody under or by
color of the authority OF the United States; or
committed for trial before some court of the
United States; or required to be brought into
cOurt to testify But this Limitation mas been
gradually narrowed and the benefits OF the writ
have been extended, first, In 1885, n U. >. stat
tutes, 63i) to prisoners confined under any au-
thority. whether State or National, for any act
done or omitted in pursuance OF law oil the
United States, or OF any order, process or decree
of any Judge or court of the United States; then,
in 1872 Is U. S. Statutes 539,) to prisoners being