Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-10-28

y
by an inferior court for trial in q civil
court, but by military officers for trial
before a military court. After an ex-
animation into the case of detention
by the inferior court resulting in an
order remanding the prisoner to Gus
tOdy, il was insisted in argument that
to bring a case within the appellate
jurisdiction of this court in the sense
requisite to enable to award the writ
of habeas corpus, under the Judiciary
act, it is necessary that the commit
ment should appear to have been by
a tribunal whose decisions are subject
to revision By this court. This prOpO-
sitiOn seems not only to assert that
the decision to be revised upon habeas
corpus must have been made by
court of the United States, subject to
the secondary appellate jurisdiction
of this court, but that, having been 50
made, il must have resulted in an or
der of commitment to the civil au-
thority, subject to the control Of the
court making it.
JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES.
The first branch of this proposition
has certainly some support in Met
zer's case Us How, 176), in which it
was held that an order of commit
ment made by District Judge at
Chambers cannot be revised here by
habeas corpus. This case, "a was OBJ
served by Mr.. Justice Nelson in
Kaine's cases IA How, l03), stands
alone, and may admit of question
whether it can be entirely reconciled
with the proposition which we regard
as established on principles and au-
thority. The appellate jurisdiction
by habeas corpus extends to all cases
OF commitment by the Judicial au-
thority of the United States not ex-
cepted from il by Congress. But it is
unnecessary to enter upon this inquiry
here.
The action which we are asked to
revise was that of a tribunal whose
decisions are subject to revision by
this court in ordinary means. We
need consider, therefore, only the
second branch Of this proposition, viz:
That the action of the inferior court
must have resulted in a commitment
for trial in a civil court, and the infer
ence drawn from it is that no relief
can be had here by habeas corpus
from Imprisonment under military
authority, TO which the petitioner
may have been Femanded by such a
court. This proposition certainly is
not supported by authority. In the
Kaine cIse all the judges except one
assented directly or indirectly TO the
jurisdiction Of this court to give relief
in a case where the detention was by
order of the United States Court. The
lawfulness Of the detention had been
examined by the Circuit Court for the
Southern District Of New York, upon
a writ Gf habeas corpus, and the court
had dismissed the writ and remandet
the prisoner to custody. In this court
relief vas denied on the merits, but
the jurisdiction was Questioned by one
Judge only, and it Is d,fficult 10 lind
any substantial grounds on which ju-
risdictiOn in that case can be affirmed
and denied in this.
la the Wells case, IS How. BOB, the
petitioner was confined in an open
dairy under seHt6Hee Of death, COM
muted by the President into q sentence
of imprisonment for life, He obtained
a writ of habeas corpus from the Cir
cult Court OF the District of Columbia,
Tas brought before that Court and was
to custody. He then sued
ont q writ of ha5eas corpus from this
court, and his case was fully cOnsid-
cred here. No objection seems 70
have been taken IL argument to the
jurisdiction, though thers, - here, il
was evident that the act of impTis0R-
ment at the time OF the petition for
the writ was not under the direction
Of this court by whose order the pris-
oneF was remanded, but by different
and distinct authority.
In the case Of We!ls, however, Mr..
Justice Curtis again diSsented, and on
the point Of jurisdiction Mr.. Justice
Campbell concGtred with him The
other Judges, though they except one, .
were Of opinion that the relief asked
must be denied, agreed in maintain
ing the jurisdiction a. asserted in this
lHd stated the ground of judgment,
affirming jurisdiction to be that as the
Circuit Court has had, the prisoner by
a writ of habeaS corpus may examine
the decisiQn and see whether it be er-
roneOB- OF Hgt. since this Judgment
was pronounced the Jurisdiction in
Passes similar TO that now before the
Court has not hitherto been ques- /
toned.
THE ARGUMENT CONSIDERED.
We have carefully considered the
against it made in this case, /
and are satisfied that the doctrine
heretofore maintained is sound The
great and leading intention of the
and the law must be
Kept constantly in view. Upon the
examination OF every question OF con-
structiOn that intent in respect to the
writ Of haUeas corpus j. Il&2iteSt. 1t
is evident that every citiZen may b6
protected By JUDICIAL action from un-
iaWfui Imprisonment. To this end, as
has been shown, the act- Of l7S3 prQ-
vided THAI every court OF the United
States should have power 10 iSsEe the
writ. The jurisdiction thus given bY
law TO the Circuit and District courts !
j. original; that given by the COnsti- [
tuition and laW TO this court is appel
late ia general terms, aud must of ne
reSSity extend 10 all ease- TO which
the judicial power Of the United /.
States extends other than those eE- [
pFassly excepted as limited by the act (
Of l1s3. = did not extend to cases Of Z
afLag conviction, under /
sentence Of competent tribunal, nor
TO any prisoners in jail, nor 10 others
in custody, nor by color Of the author I
ity Oi the United States, or committed /
for trial before some court of the Uni ]
ted States, or required to be brought /.
into court to testify.
BUt this limitation has been gradu- F.
ally narrowed, end the benefits of the /
writ have been extended. FIRST in 1898 /
q L. ). Statutes, +43), TO prisoners /
confined under any authority, whe- /
ther State or national, for any act done /
Or committed IN pursuance Of law Of 4
the Uuitsd States, or any order, pro- (
cess, or decree O. any Judge or court 1
Of the United States. iheu in 1872 1
10 L. ). Statutes, 559), to prisoners, /
being subjects or citizens of foreign I
States, IN custody under national or
State authority, for acts done OF COM I
United by order or color Of foreign /
and alleged to be valid un-
der the law Ct nations; and finally, in (
1861 IA l. s. Statutes, 3o5), to all I
eases where any person may Se re-
strained Of Liberty IN violation Of the I
Constitution, OF Of any treaty or law /
Of the United States,
g. A brief statement shows how the 4
general spirit and genius OF our insti- /
WtiUns has tended tO~Jhe enlargement /
Of the hGbeas corpus jurisdiction Of
courts aHd judges Of the United States, /
aud this tendency, except in one re- !
cent instance, has been constant and /
&nd it is in the light Of it (
that we must deterWiRe the true /
OF the Constitution and law !
in respect to the appellate jurisdiction I
Of this court; and we are not AT liberty |
to eXeepr from it any cases not plain /
ly excepted by lays end we think it
appears fFcM Ehet has I
been said, that no exception to this /
Jurisdiction embraces such cases as /
that nov before the court. On the /
contrary, the case i Gpe CO those eX- /
pressly declared not 10 be excepted ]
from the general grant Of jurisdiction, (
for 1t is case Of imprisonment al |
legged to be unlawful aDd to be under Z
color OF the authority Of the United /
States. 1t seems to be a necessary con 1
sequence that if the appellate Juri5dic-
ticu by habeas corpus extends 10 any |
case ii eErends to this. 1t is unim-
p0rtant in what custody the prisoner I
4. & 81. ..,.4fs.r4t o Ey. srfErsfsh h.