Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1869-10-16
BY TEL G RAP q
nrDHuaHT DISPATCHES.
WASHINGTON.

WlegIy0TON, October 10 In the gu
preme Court to-day the argument 10 the
Ysr0er case was commenced by Attorney
General Hoar. He argued at length that
N bripp a case within the appellate JurIs-
diction of this court, in the sense requi-
s;te m enable it to amend writ OF hd-
beas corpus under the judiciary act, 1t is
nscassary that commitment should ap-
near TO have been issued by tribunal
whose decisions are subject to Q revision
by this court. This court has never
granted this writ when the prisoner was
not at the time he petiiioned for 1t IN
confinement under an order OF court,
vbose proceedings can be revised by
sunerior court. The court cannot exer.
else any appellate contract by appealing
IN a writ Of error or any other proceed
;scs outside OF its appellate JURISDICTION
The military commander holds the petit
TONER. not under any order or decree OF
the Circuit Court, but BY the military su-
tborities. and could discharge the pris-
oner at bis pleasure, notwlthstand-
log the action of the Circuit Court
The ha6eas corpus, issued with the
csrfiorari as an adjunct Of the appellate
mower. is only permitted through the
military com mission by virtue OF whose
sentence the prisoner is imprisoned, nor
has this court power in any form, or by
any procedure, to remove the proceedings
of the commission. 10 the case OF the
petitioner the adduciDg Of writ OF
habeds corpus to the military commander
10 Mississippi would be en- exercise OF
original and not appellate Jurisdiction.
The repeal by Congress OF so much OF the
act of February 9Th, 1867, as grants an
appellate power to this court in cases OF
this nature was intended and should be
construed as taking away not the whole
appelste power 10 cases of habeas corpus,
but the anpelate mower in cases TO which
that act applied; and finally the act of
1867. providing for Military Govern
meut in Mississippi, necessarily sus-
peuded the writ of habeas corpus in that.
State. which it was in the clear constitu-
tiouhi authority of Congress to do.
mr.. ]. NJ. Carlisle replied. He said
that az citizen, be confessed that there
was no means of determining what Con-
rress might have intended TO dc, but 1t
was certainly difficult to tell when Con-
gress had come into court and seized
upon course sub judicio, and strangled
what might have been the intention, but
az q lawyer, it was easy TO soy what Con-
eress really had done by applying the
ordinary rules of interpretations, aud by
such IN cans he feared that Congress, by
the act of 1868, repealed only the statute
of 1867, which had given special Juris-
dictlon before the existence OF the l4th
section of the Judiciary, yet was un-
effected by the repeating of the act Of
1868, and II was under the provisions OF
that section that this proceeding was in
stituted and not under the act OF 1867, as
.contended by the Attorney General.
He had heard no argument which had
In the least shown that this court was
without Jurisdiction under the Judiciary
act, aud be would be inexcusable in
longer OBTAINING the court on q jurisdic-
fiction which il had reiterated and re-
affirmed lime aud again. Mr.. Carlisle
spoke briefly, without notes, making the
argument Of the Attorney General the
basis Of his remarks. The excitement
6rst caused by this csse seems to have
subsided, but few spectators being pre-
sent to-day. The venerable Thos Ewing,
of Ohio, was present till the argument
closed, and appeared much interested.
The court adjourned till Monday on
conclusion of the argument
Mr.. Field, OF Massachusetts,, was adj
mitted to practice in this court