New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-10-26
THE YERGER CASE.
THE QUESTION OF JURIsDICTION-oPINIoN OF
CHIEF-JUSTICE CHASE.

In the matter OF Edward NJ. Iergpr petition FOR habeas
corpus and certiornr. opinion Of the Court by Chief
Justice ChaseUpOn the prayer Of tile petitioner, ad
the Circuit Court of the United States for the
Southern District OF Mississippi writ OF habeas corpus
was directed TO certain military officers holding the
petitioner In custody, commanding them TO produce his
body and abide the order OF the Court In obedience 10
this writ the petitioner brought into Court by
MajorGen r. g. Granger, who made his return In due
FORM certifying the OF detention TO DO that the
petitioner had been arrested and held for trial Hpon
a charge Of murder by a military commission, under
the act Of Congress OF the I'D Of March, 1867 to provide
for the efficient government OF the Rebel States
Upon this return the petitioner was ordered into the
custody Of the Marshal and tho Court proceeded to hear
argument. It admitted that that the petitioner
was q private citizen Of the State OF Mississippi
that he being tried by the military commission
without jury; aud without presentment or indictment
by Grand Jury, and that he not and never had
been connected with the army or navy Of the United
States with the militia active service In time OF war
INVASION Upon this the Circuit Court adJudged
that the imprisonment cf the petitioner was aw9, ana
passed order that the writ 0f haheas corpus be dis
missed and that The prisoner he reanded to the custody
the military officer 10y whom lie had been brought INTO
court be held and detained for the purpose and TO an
swer the charge forth in tho return To obtain the
reversal Of this order and relief from imprisonment the
Tor review The proceedings the Circuit Court, and for
writ Of habeas corpus 10 he issued under the authority
mauded Upon the suggestion VI the Attorney General.
made In view Of the Importance of the questions
To hearing we have heard the preliminary argument
upon jurisdiction ~ the court TO issue the writ prayed
for aud have carefully considered the rersonngs which
have been addressed TO us This argument Dy the utec
ton of the court, confined 10 the single point OIJ
isiieon and state the conclusions 10 whch
have come. The general question o1 JURISDICTION III
his case resolves itself necessarily in two narrow ques
tons FIRST: Has the Court jurisdiction, In case IKE the
present inquire into the OF detention ALLEGED 70
be unlawful relief II the detention be found
70 he IN fact unlawful nv the Of habcas corpus under
the judiciary Act Of 1881 Secd II under that Act the
Court possessed this Jurisdiction has II been taken away
by the second section Of the Act OF March a. 1868 DO u
S Statutes AL repeating muchof the Act OF February
chit Courts 10 the supreme Court Neither Of these
questions Is new here. The first has on several oreaSos
received very full consideration aud very deliberate
Judgment. cause ~ important as that woh now in-
vokes the action Of the Court seems however 70 JUSTLY
q reconsideration oil ne grounds upon Mnol W.
riOn has been hitherto maintained The great writ OF
and only snnicen defence of personal freedom. In En-
gland after long struggle Was hrlny guarantees 10y
the famous Habeas Corpus ACT OF nay ~, IoIy
d British Statutes Large. g. Hallam Constitutional
History 49, the better securing OF tue hbery OF Inc
sirr,d as aunihrr Magma Charta" % Blackstoes Com
mentarier 1851 II brought TO America by the col
scended 10 henLfrOm their ancestors Naturally There
fore when the Coufeferated Colonies became the United
States and the formation Of common government en-
gagged their deliberations Ia conventions thls great %rt
ionnd pgrmaent sanction ~ 'ne ~ tSe writ Of
habeas corpus shall not he suspended unless wheh III
cases Of rebellion INVASION the the pubic safety may
require IT, The Of this provision necessarily I'M
ply judicial action. In England All tue hgnef ooni,s
we're open TO applicants for the WRIT aud u IL hardly
supI0sabe that under the new government founded on
literal ideas and principles, any court would DE lh.
teutUuaily closed to them. We hnd accordingly lhr
tine first Congress under the Constitution. after defining
by various sections Of the net Of september a. ls9 he
jurisdiction OF the District Courts, the circuit courts
aud supreme Court In other cases. proceeded W the
lHh section 10 enact that all the before mentioned
Courts OF tho United States shall have power 10 Issue
wnts seit Jaeds, habeas corpus and al other NIs nos
specially provided for 10y staae' men may oe ssssy
rthet xercse OF Their respectV1 anu 60
able 90 the principles and usages OF laWu Cs 81
Of The Jusfjces Of the supreme Court IA we'll as the
Judges ~ the District Courts shall have power To grant
The cause OF commitment; provided that Of habeas
corpus shall IN no case extend 10 prisoners III JAIL unless
the United States committed for trial before some
Court OF the same OF are necessary 10 be otongl h,o
tho power g. wrts OF habsus corpus Is et-
prey gwen by the terms Of this section h never Deen
questioned II would have been indeed a rrnafkhble
anomaly IL this Court ordained by the Constitution Tor
the xcrcse i'm tho United states OF the important
power i'm c yl eases OF all the highest Courts England.
had been denied. under Constitution which absolutely
prohibits the suspension Of the WRIT except under
ordinary e1geucies that power la Gags OF alleged un-
lawful restraint which abe habeas corpus act oil Charles
H. expressly declared those Courts 20 pOsSrss But inc
power vested this Court s Ia All important particular,
unlike that possessed by the English Courts Tue luris
dictOn Court conferred by the Constitution aud
is appellate; whereas, that OF the English
Courts. though declared aud defined 3y statutes
The judicial power OF the United states extends 10 NIL
law aud equity arising under the Constitution
the laws OF the United states, aud treaties made under
their authority aud 10 large classes u cases determined
by the character OF the parties or the nature oi the con
tToyersy II the question one, would per
haps deserve inquiry whether congress might not under
dctiOn extend the original jurisdiction to other cases
than those expressly enumerated IN the Constitution
aud especially In OF the constitutional guarantee al
the WHIT habeas cOrpns 10 cases ans ug upon petition
for that writ But in the Gaze Of ha.nry ngL Madison
the power tO Issue wrlts or mandanur' gwen
this Court by tho 18th section Of the Judiciary act II,
uuder the Constitution. appellate Jurisdiction to be
exercised only IN tho revision of Judicial decisions And
this Judgment has yer since been accepted as nxng tue
construction this part ~ tie Constitution. IL was pro-
uOunccd In 1903 In 1907 the shne construction wa-pNe
10 tho provision OF the 18th section relating To the writ 81
lab pa "A
q Cr, 1907 The power to issue the writ hhd been pre-
viously exercised III HantOn's ease 1875 Cr Hs ana
I'm BufOrds care q - 1905, M neither Of which cases
does tile distinction between appellate ana original lu
rsdiciOn appear 10 have been made. In the case of
Ramnn and swnrtwant how ever the point brought
distinctly before the Court The nature o the jurlsdc
ton carefully examined and II was declared To be
appellate The question then determined has not since
been drawn into controversy The doctrine OF tho Con
these propositions; Erst The original Jurisdiction OF
this CGur be extended by Congress 10 any other
than those expressly defined ny tle CONSTITUTION
second The appellate irisdle ron OF TINS Court CON
ferfed by Constitution extends To all other cases
within tire judicial power OF the United States JhUd:
This appellate Jurisdiction subject 10 such exceptions
and must lie exercised under such regulations AS Con-
gress the ot s discretion, Las made or may
see nc 10 make Fourth Congress not only has not ex'
appellate Jurisdictions but expressly provided for the
exercise Of this Jurisdiction by means Of these wris We
the case now before We shall assume upon the Au.
thory Of the decisions referred 10 What We should hod
were the question for tho first time presented to ~.
that proper this Court, under tue act OF lI6V
and under all the SUBSEQUENT acts Swing jurisdiction ~
Of habeas corpus, may IN the exercise of us appel
late power revise the DECISIONS OF The Inferior Courts o
the Uuited States and relieve from unlawful lInprlrOh-
authorized by them, except IN cases within some
limitation Of the Jurisdiction by Congress III renalEs 10
lire whether the before US II proper one Tor
such Interpretation Is IL within any sHch limitation
Ia other woods, eau this Court inquire INTO ths
Ia Witness tue detention, aud relieve from IT, II found
unlawful when the detention complained Of !. not by
ciyil authority under commitment made " AN hIelori
Court for trial civil Court, but by military officers
for trial before y military tribunal Z After eIamina.
ton into the cause OF detention by the Inferior Court
resulting In order REMINDING the prisoner ~ custody
IL insisted argument that To bring case within
the appellate jurisdiction Of this Court. Ia the sense
requisite 10 eune To aDPrd the writ Of hAbeaB corpus