New-York tribune., 1869-04-15
THE McARDLE CASE.
1T IS DISMISSED BY TIiE SUPREME COURT FoF
1l &c.. WANT OF JURISDICTION.

1T IS DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT FOR
.. b. 10 WANT OF JURISDICTION.
WASHINGTON, d. c., April 14.-Chief- Justice
Chase delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in
the case of ex parte William II. McArdle, as follows:
This case came here by appeal from the Circuit Court of
the Southern District Of Mississippi petition for the
writ OF habeas corpus preferred In that Court by the
appellant alleging unlawful restraint by military
force The writ was issued, and return was
made by the military commander, admitting the
restraint. but denying that it was unlawful.
1t appeared that the petitioner was not in the military
service OF the United States but held in custody by
military authority for trial before military commission,
founded the publication Of articles alleged
to be hbelous In newspaper OF which he was the eder
military custody but upon his prayer appeal al
lowed him TO mis- Court aud npon his hng the usual
nizanoe with suretes conditioned for his fntnre appear
ance IN the Circuit Court TO abide and perform the
appeal was made here at tho term and after ar.,
ment denied. full statement of the may bo
unnecessary 20 repeat IL here Subsequently the case
was argued with great ability and thorou ughness upon
While IL was then held and before conference 90 the
decision proper to he made an &C, wac passed by oon
passed by the constitutional majority which, n s nsst
ed takes from ne Court o. the appeal Inc
%ad Arr eaed That much Of the act approved F.h
rs. Usi,sS states sppotst sept a. as .asoIss an SpSss
o. ho@ 10s ss sbs o. 9 % sS ns r nv & supreme %
Court appeals witch have been or may bsser be En be aud the
Tie Of tho Court was directed TO this statute
AZ AZ ne % ~ ,e argapep %pon its cse and lie csus
ce being detained from his place here by his dutes ia
under advisement At this term We have
heard argument upon the effect OF the repeating
Tne ars question necessarily is that of Jurisdiction for Il
the act March 1868 takes away the Jurisdiction defined
by tho act Of February # IL useless II rot improper
TO enter into any discussion Of other questions. IL
quite true as was argued by the counsel for the petit
Toner that the appellate Jurisdiction OF tins Conrt was
not derived from acts OF Congress- II s strictly speaking
conferred y the Constitution But It is conferred with
shall make" II is unnecessary 70 consider whether II
Congess had made no exceptions ana NO regnaGns,
jurisdiction under rules presented by itself for among
All a. A. i7s TO establish the judicial Courts Of
the United States That act provided Tor the
G8 ana 4Se soHes Of that %.
limitations OF BY the Consultation and the statute nave
been be ,s on 5se cevSfab Of Ss the Ged States par
ticuarly the whole matter was cere1nly eonsdereu t
IRS R. CsSrt curt he Sio sf hot given By re judicial ac
but are given by the CONSTITUTION they are Revesns sr1
less limited and regulated Sy at ~ hSt %G :usec a The
Court held further that the judicial act was an exercise
Of the power given by the Consncn no 70 the
supreme Court" "They have described aillrmaivey, ~
said Court Its "a S"a any a, C
lie exercise Of such appellate power, as ~ Is NOT
SSnPsffnns Sf t%FGeion implies tie neEston of all such
inTisdicoi not erped having been thus estsoSnea, @
IL was a almost necessary CONSEQUENCE as ecto Va WI
ress pfoyding for the exercise Of Jurisdiction should
come Ia be spoken Of acts granting Jurisdiction anu
NOT as nets making exception to the grne %
Oft The exception to the appellate jarisdeu9n, ~ ne
case before us, however, Is not an lnIcrenco
from the affirmation Of other appeilate lv'isn'o t
sGymne tie appellate jurisdiction OF this Court ~ cases
of habeas corpus IL expressly repeated ~ IL nhluy pos
sble to imagine palmer instance D, pdpo f Tie
We are not at liberty TO inquire INTO the .o
foSIatmre We can only examine It's power under the
ConstitntiOn and the power 10 make exceptions 10 .o
snrnate Jurisdiction OF tms Court ~ gwen py
What then 10 the effect OF the repeating hct
npon the case before uSt We cahnot uouDo ooa %" AZ
tls without jurisdiction inc Oous vaol Ihe law
ali m any cause. Jurisdiction Is power 20 70
and whs n il ceases exit, tile only
to Court Is that Of e no lses ahorty than
,,o, nrineIne Several cases cited by the coui
for the petitioner In support Of the position Iphs ~, h't
ton OF this case Is not Affected oy yd od ov sunbort TO IT,
They are ali caker at OF tndela power ny w"
isntnre OF Legislative interference M'' o t t 80
hd ,hs General rule supported hy the best elementary
writer is that when act Of the Legislature 10 Iewaop
q nst he eOntidered except as TO trhnsacllos passe
IA cIssd ma n IL never existed And the effect oi repeal
n~ acts up0n suits under acts repealed las peeh oete
mined by the adiadSsoa Cr n 's Norris Sg CPockcr
and more recently il Insnr9nce company ~ asS nv
tchlc in both of which cases ~ Was was R 1be ,cncsl o
@ , ,,ndr which IL was brought and prosecuted
N a auIte clear therefore, that THIS Court vlo.
80 nrdnomce judgne in this case, Tor u mas no on. ~
10 lie apu.al; and judicial duty is not yes
;itly performed by declining nnantnoizn @ tnt"n a1'
ia exercising firmly snSs Sh o have pposed ec
he oiven 10 the repeating act In quefUon ,uat to
appellate power OF the Court III % ct o. Of ,sSs does no
, non, that Jurisdiction any 0thercases aud appeal
Srnm SgTcuit Courts under the act OF 1891 does mU
w., thnt iuri.dle ion which WAS previously oAoIcneu
% of the petitioner In ts case must DC disnlsSe
| fOr want Of jurisdiction.
TREASURY NOTICE.