The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-10-18
Tho HorEor Case in the supreme Court.
ARGUMENT OF ATTORNEY GEN. HoAR.

ARGUMENT OF ATTORNEY GEN. HoAR.
WASHINGTON, Oct. l5.
In the Supreme Court, to-day, the
argument In the YerRer case was COM
menced by Attorney General Hoar. He
argued at length that to bring q case
within the appellate Jurisdiction OF this
Court, In the senselrequisIte to enable
II to award a writ OF hdbedS corpus, I'M.
der the Judiciary Act, 1t Is necessary
that the commitment should appear 10
have been by o tribunal whose decis.
Ions are subject 10 revision to this
Court. This Court has never granted
this writ when the prisoner was not, at
the time he petltioned for 1t, In confne.
ment under an order Of court whose
proceedings can be revised by the Su.
preme Court. This Court can not ex.
erciso any appellate control, by appeal,
writ or error, or any other proceedings,
over the military commission by virtue
OF whose sentence the prisoner is i'm
prisoned, nor has this Court power, In
any form, or byIany procedure, to re-
Wise the proceedings of the Commits
sloner In the case of the petitioner.
The addressing OF the writ OF hdbedS
corpus to the military commander In
Mississippi would he an exercise OF orI-
Rlnal. and not appellate Jurisdiction.
The military commander holds the PEI
titioner, not under any order or decree
OF the Circuit Court, but by military
authority, aud could discharge the p RI
Roner at his pleasure, Notwithstanding
the action OF the Circuit Court. The
hdbeuS corpus, Issued with the cert.
ordri, as an adjunct OF the appellate
power, 10 only permitted where the Gus.
tody OF the prisoner Is an essential part
OF the Judgment or decree from which
the appeal Is taken. The repeal by
Congress- OF 30 much Of the act Of Feb
ruary 8, 1867, Us granted appellate
power to this Court, In case OF this M
ture, was intended, and should he con.
strued, as taking away, not the whole
ofappellate power In Gases OF hdJcas
corpus, but the appellate power In cases
10 which that act applied. Finally, the
government In Mississippi, necessarily
suspended the writ OF hGJedS corpus In
that State, which it was within the clear
constitutional authority Of Congress 10
do.
NIX. CARL1SLEA REPLY
Mr.. J. NJ. Carlisle replied. He said
that, as citizen, he confessed there
was no means Of determining what
Congress might have intended TO do /;
but It was certainly difficult to tell when
Congress had come into court and
seized upon cause sub JUDGE, and stran-
gled what might not have been the in.
tentlon. But, as a lawyer, II was easy
to say what Congress really had done,
by, applying the ordinary rules Of in
depreciation, and by such means he
found that Congress, by the Act of 1868,
repealed only the statute Of 1867, which
had given special Jurisdiction. The
fourteenth section Of the Judiciary Act
was unaffected by the repeating act Of
1865, and II was uudsr the provisions
OF that section that thIs proceeding was
Instituted, aud not under the act of
1867, as commended 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 he would be In
excusable In long OBTAINING the Court
In Insisting upon Jurisdiction which
Il had reiterated and reaiIirmed, time
and time again. -
Mr., Carlisle spoke briefly Without
notes, making the argument Of the At
tornGy General the basis Of his remarks
The excitement ut first caused by
this proceeding seems TO have greatly
subsided, but few spectators having sat
out the argument to-day, The Verlera.
Bile Th0s. Ewing of Ohio, was present
until the argument closed, and appear
ed much interested. Upon the conclu-
sion OF the argument the Court djourn.
ed until Monday. va r...... =