Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-10-28
THE YERcER CASE.
A Full Report of the Decision.
Opinion by Chief Justice Chase.

the writ was properly Issued ana ar
lest made. The simple single issue
of the jurisdiction of the civil Court
is considered, which, the Chief JUS
tice said, resolves itself into two mar
row questions:
First-Has the court jurisdiction in
n case like the present to inquire into
the cause of detention, alleged to be
found to be i'm fact unlawful by the
writ Of habeas corpus under the judi
ciary aei of 1888?
Second-If under act the circuit pos
sessed this jurisdiction, has it been
taken away by the second section OF
act of March y, 1868; 18th United
States statutes, a, repeating so much
Of the act OF February 3, 1867; United
States statutes s. as authorizes APP
peal5 from Circuit Court TO the Su-
pYeme Court?
Neither of these questions IS new
here. The first has on several occa-
sions received very full consideration
and very deliberate Judgment. a
cause 80 Important rs that which now
fnyOkes the action OF the Court fails,
however, 10 justify a reconsideration
of the grounds upon which It's Jurls-
dictiOu has been maintained. The
great writ of habeas corpus has been
tor centuries esteemed the best and
only sufficient defense Of personal
freedom.
MAGMA CIARTA.
In England, after long struggle, II
was firmly guaranteed by the famous
hshe3s rorpus act of May %, 1913
British statutes at large; 3 Hallam' ;
Constitutional History, IS. For the
better securing of the liberty OF the
subject. which. as Blackstone says, Is
frequently considered rs another Mag
ma Charta-3 Blackst0ae's CCmmen-
taries, I35-it was brought 20 America
bv the Colouists and claimed as among
the immemOrial rights descended 10
them from their ancestors. Naturally,
therefore. when the cOnfederatep Col
Onies became the United states, and
the foTMatiOn of a common govern
ment engaged their deliberations IN
convention, this great writ Tor perina-
nent sanction Is ia these words:
The privilege OF the writ OF haOeas
corpus shall not be suspended unless
when in case Of rebellion or Invasion
she public safety may require"
The terms OF this provision nece5-
Harliy imply Judicial action. In Eag-
land all the higher courts were open
To applicants iOr the writ, and Ii Is
hard V suppOsilbie that under the new
Government, founded on more liberal
iAls2s ans. principles, any court would
* Intentionally closed 10 them. We
lind, accordingly, that the first Con-
.gress SS-1leT the Constitution, after de-
fining by various sections Of the act Of
september p, 1889, the jurisdiction Of
che District Courts, the Circuit Courts
and the Supreme COurt 10 other cases,
proceeded IN the fourteenth section to
enact that all the aforementioned
courts Of the United States shall have
sDOwer to issue Writs Of sciFe facias,
halssas corpus and all other wrlts not
epeeiallv provided for by statute,
which nay be necessary for the eX-
ercise OF theiE respective jurisdictions
and agreeable &c the principles and US
ayes OF flaw-UniIed States Statutes, 5.
In the same section il vas further
provided that either Of the Justices Of
Taa Supreme Court, as well a. the
Judsre- OF the District Courts, shall
have power 10 grant Writs OF Eabe4s
corpus f9r the purpose Of an inquiry
into the caase of Commitment: Pro-
Vded, That MFits of habea5 corpus
shall in no case extend to prisoners in
iail, unless IN custody under or by
color Of the authority of tIe United
states, or are committed for trial he-
S,re some court OF the same, or are
necessary 10 be brought into court 70
testify. That this court i one gf the
courts to which the power 10 issue
Writs OF habeas corpus Is expressly
given by the terms OF this section has
never been questioned. 1t would
have been, indeed, a remarkable
2nOmOly if this court, ordained by the
Constitution for the exercise in the
y nited States of the most important
aJuWeFs in civil eases Of all the highest
courts of England, had been denied,
ander a Constitution which absolutely
prohibits the suspension of the writ
except under extraordinary eNigen-
cieS, that power in eases OF alleged
unlawful restraint, which the habeGs
corpus act OF Charles /. expressly de-
clared those courts TO possess.
APPELLATE AND ORIGINAL JURIs-
DICTION.
But tie power vested in this court
j. in an fiaSortant particular unlike
that possessed by the English courts.
The jurisdictiOH 81 this court i con-
serrcd by the Constitution and is APP
pe!late, whereas that Gf the English
courts. though declared and defined
by statutes, Is derived from the cGuI-
mon law and il original. The judicial
power of the United States extends to
All cases in law and equity arising
under the Constitution. the laws of
the United States and treaties made
under their authority, aud u large
classes Of cases determined by the
character OF the controversy. That
portion of this Judicial power vested
IN this court IS defined Dy the COnsti-
EutiOn in these words:
q" In ali cases affecting Ambassadors,
other public Ministers and Consul5,
and those IN which a State shall be
party, the Supreme Court shall have
original jurisdiction. In all other cases
before mentioned, the Supreme Court
shall have appellate jurisdiction, both
rs 10 law and 10 fact, with such eR-
oepJiOns and under such regulations
a. the Congress shall make"
Il the question were new one, IL
sxOHkt perhaps deserve inquiry Wheth-
er Congress might not under the
power 70 make exceptions from this
appellate jurisdiction. extend the orig
inGl jurisdiction 10 other cases than
those expressly enumerated in the
Constitution, and especially in view
Of the Constitutional guaranty * the
wit Of habeas corpus 20 cases arising
upoG petition for that writ. But in
the cAse of Maruury ". Madison, /. c.
R. I37, Il was determined upon foil
consideration that the power TO issue
vrits Of naadamus given this court
bv the thirteenth section Of the judi
ciary act Is Under the Constitution an
appellate jurisdiction, 10 be exercised
only in the revision Of the judicial
decision, and this Judgment has ever
since been accepted a. liking The con
structiGa Of this part Of the COnstitl-
ton. 1t Sss pronounced in 1893. In
1861 the same construction was gwen
90 the provision Of tsss J 18th section re
Eating 70 the writ OF faSeSz corpus IN
the ease OF B3llnIaH and SWartEant, J
a. &. ios. TIE power 10 issue the
writ had been previously exercised in
Hamilt0n's, 1876, 3 c. X. AS, and in
BuriOTd's ease, /, 1896. In neither Of
which cases does the distinction be-
tween appellate and original jurisdic-
ZION appear to have been made. In
the case of Baliman aud SWartWant,
however, the point was distinctly
h-Ought before the court. The nature
ofthe Jurisdiction was carefully exam
fned. and it was declared to be ap-
pellats.
DOCTRINE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Theouesti0n then determined has not
since been draws igtO the controversy.
The doctrine of the Constitution, and
Of the cases thus lar, may be summed
ap Ia these propositions:
Ist. The original jurisdiction OF this
court cannot BE- extended by Congress
20 any other eases than those express
Is defined by the Constitution.
ID. The appellate jurisdiction Of
this court, conferred By the COnstitu-
tion. extends TO all other cases within
the judicial power of the United
States.
81. The appellate jurisdiction Is
sub1ect to such exceptions and must
be exercised under such regulations as
Congress, in the exercise Of its discre-
fion. has E1ade or may see ut to make.
4. Congress not only has not eX-
eepted Writs OF habeaS corpus and
mandamus from this appellate JuTis-
dictiOn, but has expressly provided
for the exercise of this jurisdiction by
means of these Writs.
We come then 70 consider the nrst
great question made in the case now
L.f,wa "a Va chaF aa.ursaa rnnn