The New York herald., 1869-02-27
n 80 ! =
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Argument Of Counsel ON tho Application Of
Arnold aud Spanglcr, the Assassination
Conspirators, for Writ Of IIabcas Corpus.


Conspirators, for Writ Of IIabcas Corpus.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26. 1860.
In the Supreme Court OF the United States to-day
the cases er pdrte OF Samuel Arnold and Edward
Spanglcr were argued by Philip Phillips. OF counsel
on behalf Of the petitioners. He said the petitions
in these cases show that the petitioners, citizens o
the state OF Maryland. were tried and convicted in
the city OF Washington By military commission
after the close OF the warto w.t. in June 1865; that
they had never been connected with the military or
naval service OF the United States nor with the mill
tia when called into active service; that at the
time Of their arrest and conviction the courts In the
District OF Columbia unobstruced In the excr-
else OF their rJudIca function, and the laws In this
district were unmpaired; that Grand Juries, since
Their arrest have frequently been organized In the
been prepared against them In said courts;
that the charge on which they were con-
vlcted being. for traitorousy .conspiring in
they are entitle 10 be discharged from imprisonment
under the proclamation OF the President United
States under date Of the 2tth OF December 1865. II
s submitted that the decisions OF the Supreme Court
arc full TO the point not only that II Is within the
appellate power OF the court to grant the writ Of
ment but to discharge them when II shall be made
apparent by the return and certlorar that the
statements In the petitions are true. Mr.. Phillips
argued that the appellate power OF this
court is by the constitution subject 70 such excep-
tions and to such regulations as Congress may MAKE
The provision that there should be but one supreme
Court as to which all others were TO be inferior,
demonstrates that the power was to exercise gen
eral supervisory jurisdiction. lie referred TO the
Judiciary act or 1859 TO show that either
OF the justices OF the supreme Court shall
have power TO grant writs OF haheas corpus
for the purpose OF inquiring into the cause OF COM
mment In all cases where the party IL In custody
under or by color OF the authority OF the United
states or Is committed Tor trial before some court,
or II Is necessary that he be brought into court "a
testify and of It's sections provides that for any
crime against the United states any justice or Judge
or the United states may arrest. imprison or bail
the ofcndcr. The power 10 bail csarily includes
the power TO issue the writ 81 habcas corpus, and
both npon principle and authority; the power con.
ferred on any ono justice may be exercised by oil
when sitting as o. court What counsel
maintained is this, that 10 was competent for
Congress to have granted the appeal or writ
of error as well In criminal os IN evil cases, and
that in the former class they may have included ap-
peal or writ OF error from military tribunals.
Mr.. Phillips quoted the McCarllc ana other cases In
support OF his argument, and concluded by saying n
the Court had power to grant the writ where party
virtue OF the act OF 17se that power Is wholly unai
fected BY the act OF 1867.
Assistant Attorney General Ashton replied on the
part OF the United States, maintaining that the Su.
premc Court can grant writ Of habeas corpus I'D
subIciendum only in the exercise Of its appellate
jurisdiction and BY means OF such writ can revise
only the pro- ecdinRs Of those tribunals over which
and In respect to which II has appellate control and
authority TIL court cannot exercise any appellate
control by appeal. writ OF error or any other pro-
OF whose sentence the petitioners are I'M.
prIsoned, nor has the court the power In any
form or by any procedure TO revise the
Of that commission IN case petition. ihs court Us
application during term lime but the allowance of
tie writ w consent rests In is discrcil,n THIS c9urs
has no authority under ana IN virtue ~ the act oi
February, 1851, to grant the writ of naDeas corpus