The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-10-29

too plain for argument thai the dental tn tb;
court oi appellate jurisdiction in this class or
cases must greatly weaken the efficiency Of the.
writ, deprive tile citizen in many cases Of its
licnslts. and seriously hinder the establishments
personal rights which can only be attained
thrnush appellate Jurisdiction exercised upUn de-
particular class OF cases Of which that before the
court IL an eNampe. where the custody To Which
The prisoner IL rcman,lrd IL that or some authori-
ty other than that OF the rcmar'ling court, 1t Is
evident that the imprisoned citizen, however ur-
lawful his imprisonment may lie In fact, is
wholly without remedy unless IL be found In the
appellatc jurisdiction OF this court
These considerations forbid any constructions
giving to doubtful words the effect OF withhold
ing or abrldglng this Jurisdiction. They would
strongly persuade against tue denial Of the b,ris-
dictiOn even were the reasons for offering il less
We arc Obliged to hold, therefore, that In all
cnses whcrca Circuit Court OF the United States
mas, IN the exercise of Its original jurisdictions
caused prisoner to DO brought before IL, ami
mas. after inquirng into the cause Uf detention,
rcman'ied him to the custody from Which he was
taken, thls court In the exercise OF Its appellate
Jurisdiction may by the writ Of haoraS corpus.
Aided by the writ OF certi0ra,f, revise the dccis.
ION oi ths Circuit Court and u {. be found unwar
Iahteu by law, relieve the prisoner from tho M
iawinl restraint TO which lie has been remundeu.
THE ACT OF 1868.
This conclusion brings is to the inquiry whrtb.
er the second section OF tic act or March ~ iSGs
takes away or AFFECTS the appellate Jurisdiciion "i
this court under the Constitution aud the acts oI
Congress prior TO 1867
case an opinion that II does. But the point WAS
not carefully considered, and we have re.eXamin.
cd II. u Wall, 5l5.l
Tie circumstances under which The act of 1SGs
wns passed were peculiar. .
THE H'cAnDLE CASE.
On the 9Th or February, 1897, Congress passed
an act; to which reference has already been made,
extending the original jurisdiction by hGbcas
corpus Of the district and circuit courts AMI uf
the several Judges Of these courts. all cases ur
restraint Of liberty in violation of the Constit,I-
tlnn, treaties, or laws or the United States. This
act authorized appeals to this court from jutig-
previous act cOnferrlng jurisdiction by hdbeaS
CORPUS unless by duplication. Under this net
one McCnrdc, alleging unlawful restraint by
Southern District OF Mississippi for the writ OF
hdGedS corpus. The writ was issued and IL re.
decided that the restrain, was lawful, ana re-
lnandcd him To custody. NcCarIle prayed an
appeal, under the net. To this court, which wns
allowed amt perfected. motion To dismiss the
appeal WINS n,ntiv here AMI denied. The case was
tl,cn argued ut the bar, and, the argument h:lv-
ing been concluded, OH the 9th OF Narch. iSio.
was taken under n,lyiscmcut by the court While
the cause was thus held, aud before the court hal
lime 10 consider the decision proper to he mau
the repeating act under consideration WAS int ru-
duccd into Congress. The net was carried
through both Houses. sent TO the President, re-
stitutional majority In each House and became II
INV on the 9th OF March, within eighteen days
after the conclusion of the argument.
Tic ELECT or the act 10 Oust the court OF ts
JurlRuiction OF the particular case then before 1t
on appeal, ana II Is not to lie doubted that such
was the effect Intended nor will il he questioned
that legislation Of this character IL unusual aud
naIIif 20 DC Justified, except upon IOmc inipcrious
public cNigcncy.
IL was doubtless within tue constitutional dts
cretton or Congress- TO determine whether such an
sxigency exlstcd but II Ia not TO lie presumed that
an act passcti under such circumstances was in
tended 10 have any further effect than that plainly
apparent from liz terms.
mo-. u a.v s Sits lite Ha' The words Of the act reach
peals to thistt under the act of 1877; but they
appear to be limited to appeals taken under that
Tue words OF the rcpening section are .sThut
30 inucn OF The Act approved February S, 1867, as
G,rl, GMI,SeS an appeal from the Judgment OF the
states or the exercise OF any such jurisdiction y
ar ania supreme Court on appeals which have been
hereby. repealed"
These words are not OF doubtful interpretation
rhorized appr;liJ or the exercise Of npIci Into in.
rlsulction by this court. They affected only np-
peais and appellate jurisdiction authorized by
'ihat act; They do not purport TO touch the ap-
late Jurisdiction conferred hy the Constitution Ly
excepting from It any cases not excepted by the
1897 ~ VA
II hos been suggested, however, the act OF 1853,
SO 1nr al 1t provided for tho issuing OF writs OF
habeas corpus by this court was ulroady renealcd
by the act Of 1867. We have already observed
mat there are no rcpealing words In that act Ir
IL repealed the act or 1850, II did 30 by impica-
tion; and any implication which would give to il
this effect upon the net of I1s0 would give IL the
+ ~
was repealed all were repealed.
Repenls by implication are not favored They
are seldom admitted except OH the ground OF re-
pugnancy; and never, VIC think, when the Tsrmcr
act Gun stand together with the new act No
doubt the exercise Of appellate Jurisdiction under
the act OF 1889 less convenient than under IN
act OF 1867; but the provision OF n new and more
convenient mode OF its exercise does not neces
IL SHd SY ,ss s ss ei
thorty conferred by the new act Is expressly
declared to he sin addition" to the authority con.
stitution.
The appeal given by this act OF 1867, extended,
indeed the cases within the former acts; and tile
ACT, ny its grant OF additional authority 40 en-
larged tile Jurisdiction by habPaS tUrpHS that It
seemed. ~ was observed in the ncCardc case,
not take from the act lis character OF All addition
III grant OF Jurisdiction, and make It operate as Il
repeal or Jurisdiction heretofore allowed.
CONCLUSION.
Our conclusion is that none Of the acts prior
10 1861 authorizing This court 10 exercise appcl-
late Jurisdiction by means uf the writ OF h0beas
corpus, were repealed by the act OF that yenr and
mat the repeating section OF the act or 1868 Is
limited In terms, and must he limited in effect to
the appellate Jurisdiction authorized by tile act
we could come 10 no other conclusion witbout
holding that the whole appellate Jurisdiction or
this court, In cases Of hdbpds corpus conferred
ny the Constitution, recognized by law, and exer-
cised from the foundation OF the government
hitherto, has been taken away, without tile
OF such intent, and by mere impi
cStion through the operation OF the aclS OF 1887
and 1868.
The suggestion made at the bar that the proyfs.
ION OF tic act or 1882 relating To the Jurisdiction
o1 the court by hGbrGS corpus, IL repealed by the
encct 0f The net Of 1867, was revised by the repeal
or the repeating act has not escaped our c0sidrr
ton. We are inclined to think that sIcI, would
be ic effect OF 1865; but having come To the con.
chlslon tlal the act OF lIS9 was n0t repealed by
lhe act OF 1867 II is not necessary TO express nn
opinion OH that point.
"'lle argument having been confined, by dircc.
lion OF the court, TO the question Of jurisdiction
his opinion IL limited TO that question. The jurs.
ctiOh or The court To issue the writ prayed for Is
affirmed.
JUSTICE MILLER DIssESTs.
Associate Justice SwuSnc was understood 10
remark That lie had hecn request ed to say for AS
'dciate Justice Miller, who WAS absent, that the