, 1869-10-26


y iron Petition for that VIII: bat IN ths case
VI absb9sy r.. Madison q c. r, is7), It Nas de-
,t t1insned upon fuii consideration th1t the power
shs s l3tn sectloH Of the Judiciary scs is, under
sne eohs;ttolon, an Appellate Jurisdiction, 10 p
dcci.en aud fhts Judgment has ere. s.ncs nesn
see*lled ~ dx1nx tue construction OF this part
,he es enn.titns,on On xa. pronounoed II l5 In
sENo oL the fourteenth section, fr!a'irg TO the
~ Q, hat<as eoyuua, In the r1e+ Of 1talnsa and
T1fs9q: y ~ L. e in The power 70 issue nc
case 1s&3 g {. K, 4.s, aud ia EurtoFj; ;s case in
Isa, IN nesner Of WHICH cases does the dsstnct.on
y have been uaade. In tic case OF HslIusa and |
s"asts our, however, The poin. VIA brought DIS |
dn nst, belosc nc son.' The nature Of the 1ass
CARD to be appellate. The question Then drrer. |
n,ned has not klnce been orawn into controversy.
there propositions: lss. The Original ]uris-
dlet;on OF thiz Court cannot be extend
expressly defined bJ the constitution, u Tne
appelia1e jurisdiction o1 this Court conferred tJ
tue tu,:lcial 10 war Of the Untt:i Sistes sa Tnis
u pellais Jurisdiction u subject to such excep-
ntnk and must he exercised under such s+9usa-
hah u ade or maj bee at To make. Stn. Congress
t1t oils las not excepted ws,sa Of Labras enrpus
,s hnd :. sna9nu. itom 1ns apDea.s iaIdlcuoo
th.a Jurisdiction BY ueans OF these wrtta
We come then, 10 consider the nrst great ques-
sssome upon authority Of the decisions referred
to what We thGpd hold were the question now
tor s1s nrst tie presented to ns7;aas N proper
oil rue equcnt acts gsrspg jarsdictlou tn Of
AstecA eoFEu& at, IN the exercise Of 1ta appellate
ite United s,ases and release from unlawful in
rr1.onment authorized hJ them, except In cases
within some limitation Of The jurisdiction
such in1ezp1e:a;.oE- is It ~isniu any sueh n
limitation ln other words, c7a th!s Court inquire
iru1u It Il fund unlawful. y hen the detention
tsMI''ntEe cd ot ~ lot ~ civil authority. under
civil court, hut BY military officers Tor 1Elai be-
tore military tribunal, after an examination
INTO The cause q! the detention BY the Inferior
ctult resulting in IN trtl'r r mart!'pR the pE.2per
TO custody. Il VILE 1ct&.teti in aFcumcnt, HAT to
tHinR Cuse within tie appellate jurisdiction OF
this toutt IN tie keEse regulate to q at.le u TO
as5 ae:, It Is nsccAsary ,ha. the commitment
shoitd appear TO have be~u By tribunal
+, til c"uss. THIS isopo ,l:s3n seems IL as.eft,
OF uuly lhat tic decision 10 bt revised apU1 hi
leas ctftns must have tecu made By court VI tire
lnlte.l Sta!es. subject 10 the secondary appellate
jurisdiction Vi this to11t, hut ilat having been 80
suude, II mast have resulted IN an order of cou-
H.t1D. nj to riv,s aItho1tr suhlrct to the caa,ro
aopcsst,on ms certa.El5 some support IL Me;zess
case Is iiow., 1''}, IN which II wa. held taat a.
| order o. commandment nlate by District Judge III
chambers tsnn0t IL IeSi=t.ti her. By habsas sr.
Th&s t1se, Was Observed Of Mr. Justice Se.e1u
| 10 katnc's cases Ns uos.. l"s,, stands
alone and Il may n,;2a,, adnt ol aas.;;
With The rEupotlI3on, witch VIC regat,l Al es1Itb-
l1scti Hron principle and nuEhosity. that The ap-
sate Jurisdiction BY hal<a* rpFr"* extends 70 vi!
! Cases oI commitment By the judIctM auinoFtr uf
Tue unned States not excepted from II h4 Con
EreSs. But II Is unnecessary to enter upon tas
| inquiry here The action which We are asked to
| Ftvlse was that Of a tribunal whose decisions are
*ntec: to revision bJ thlsCoart in ordinary motcs.
We need con.iIer. therefore, only the second
| tfauch Of the proposition, namely, that the
acton Of tho iniezof couts must naye resulted IN
commitment for trial In civil court and the IN.
ference drawn from 1t Is that no relief cao
utder military authority, 10 which the peusionera
| may have been Fetnande' by such court THIS
proposition certainly Is not supported by autnort,
serrt d. directly Of indirectly. the jurisdiction o1
the court to Rtee relief IN case Where the dc'en
tlon was ~ order Of the CE!ted S:ate4 Comm..
s!oneE. The lawfRlness Of the telcni!on has heeE
| examined by the Elcu!. Court fer the SoutherI
District Of New York. upon xr!t Of hattus e.rput
ard the court has dismissed the wtt and rem aud
as;n a,St!on waa va, qae.''oned Sy ,,.,,. sas 5adst
@ an any substantial, @ Grounds upon sisa 4a,sn ju.a.s
ton In that case cnn be affirmed, aid denied i;
this. Wells Gaze. Is How, $780,, The petitioner
Vas confined under q sentence Of death, cum
n.ufctl hy the President Into sentence of ,marts
outnert for life. lie obtained wr1t Of hahta
fvrlus from The Circuit Court of tue District O
lolun.hia, was brought before that court and wa
scman,lcd to custody: He then sued out WRIT O.
hahsas corpus from this Court. and his Gaze VA
fully considered here. No objection seeus tt
have been taken IN the Arguments ~ The jarts'ic
fior, though there a. here. was cEldcat that ths
actual Imprisonment a. the ilmc Of ths
pe.utou 1os tae "tt IT, s ~ not uuasi tne al
was senlattlet,. but h5 different aud distinct au
,nc1iry. In the case Of Wells, however, III. Jus
,:ss Gn,s asnln ,ssssn,s M !, On the po;nt
ore, were Of opinion 1Iia, tue relief askea mas i
asserted in this, ann stated the ground Of ,u.g
sneut, affirming }qrtsilcson to tt tnat a. the Cir
feit court has naa ne prisoner y VI, .
nattaa o!ft., iats tSott LILY eNaulne tn3t ae
aa lon IT, 'h sSe mneats .a pe ev!oaeoas of hol
s!nsc 1nis luuenSns was pronounced me lofs
ncilea n cacs s!niaf 10 laat no" pfiorc me cont
nas hoa n1nsI.o nesa qnes,aoae. We nave care
!u.ty coLsluc!ed tHc alRtmeIE aGa1nst II ma.1e II
tb!s case anu arc tatftcd th1L inc doctrine hefr
;olors laaintaihea Is soani Ihr EFGat anH lea'i
| tR lnteFcst OF me conattu11oh AMI Tie saW mas
ae Aeps constasu! ~ view upoa ing eSan::naslot
ess,5 quss1un ~ ts " coas; tuc.!oa- 4ae lnsnt Il
L ibet ri! y. 1msx ~ rn1,a ss ~
| mi. cn.1 ~ hos Lar sr"ra ~ -, ~ 80 - =
.''ia tsot j.. c,r co,s ~ ~, ~" ~ a' IT.
!a.e POWER 70 Issue Tue VIA ne lar1sdtc,i,.
tn'ls Esen " u" u INC t.tcais anu o!,sr!r
sosr's ~ - of'SaA ' 1ha. s'en ns INC constl,1o'
]
tisGn III general tefES IL must necessarily CT
s. !ssI 70 ~ casea 10 wEhh the Judicial power Q
tss naea ss ssa.Gs ea,etus, otnet LIZA ine.e & eS
ut s"t eAe1 ;1e,n ~ cssSa o! pa!Sonent n'e
noT TO- sy pfisonst; e; n a Esisss IN castoiF IN
Sla;ee q eomia'llel Tot tr'ai Ixters :ome coart
he I1,ea S1a'eS er rssl1ire.l 10 b hrneilt 1ut
narsoxe a. to-: beasa;s o IT, ;ne VIII s19 f'
! ht~a exten..eti. ns*s, 10 1es3 - Cn;tre state
Ssasntss, ~. to pri*oness contntl units any Ut
~ done u emittea III rarsasoce Of
e decree & Of anx ;1u'lss Or Court q The Ense'
r.1.oner+, tesug sahtec:s " eltlzens Of l"rele'
Ssa,ss H. H. sustod, un9sr Nst,oss' o7 s:ats !!
of ssseisu nataos.,,. sad aese q r. % sata ID one "
tae law )! nations; anc analiy, IN lss; ii t. )
ls.s Il T. e5 FL sss, ,,ss5 %s ao{ q eoR
u1iun CT OF anJ treaty Of law Of the United s,aTs.
Th1,.I i l1.eI .turenieb, tho*r hos the grt,ers
liz xdssns a. and safsnS .; aa 'as CO.
e,4trs .Jurlsictlon Of Courts and ,su':ge
IT the tinted States, aai this teulsnrs. e7
ming tie tue meaning of inc coostit1;Ion an
Nv p rs;res. e " appx,.e 'stts's,,on . Il,
ant cases lot plainly eaeepeti b. iax, aad =
lhinl !, sunlcicntg anreats from what has bcc
.s s1i xs il. e ds 81 5sss
On lie sonsrss. tue csse Is Que u ;tose exnrs
ls Leciay,l moi 10 te excepted from the ccnera
nimrn: alleged 10 IN, unlaEfni. AMI to ~ nnd,.
coioT ~ aotnor,tr ri The Tn,ir,, s,steS II sc.T1
to BE- snecesssrr conseSqeucc thai !! lie anpella;
tvrs,irftnn ~ 49, :. ,at. .x1ons. ~ ~ rns
n e3'e9hs Ths. ens;o.sr tnc aIns nnsans
n s.ey 10 ~ WhSa 1e aas ee1
i:n;,cd State If Ia nfnner tn LII tAsf ~. 70 ~ A.
COZ aEa9e Of an5 hing il ~ act q consress, 81