The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-04-01
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

The .McCardle Casc-Efiect of the Repeal o,
the Act of 1S67--Does IL Deprive the Cours
OF Jurisdiction to Render Judgment in the
Cuscs
Er Iaarte wutfan, n. 1cCardls This was the
argument the question OF the effect OF the repeal
Of the act OF 1867 in cases OF appeal from the Circuit
Court on habeas corpus. The facts OF the case will
be remembered Tue appellant, McCardle, fled his
petition In the Circuit Court for the Southern dis
trct OF Mississippi IN November, 1887, for writ OF
habeas corpus be directed to General Ord or Gen.
cral Oilem, or both, by whom or by whose orders
the petitioner alleged he was illegally detained in
prison. Tue writ was issued and the body Of the ap-
pelan. was produced in court aud a full return
made, setting forth the cause OF Imprisonment.
No issue was made upon the facts stated
In the return; but the appellant moved for
his discharge upon the ground ol the insuiciency
Of the return matter of law. Tha Circuit Court
held the return SUFFICIENT and remanded McCardle
10 the custody OF the military authorities, from
which he had been taken by tue writ. McCardle
then TOOK his appeal from the decision and judy
ment VI the court In pursuance OF The act in ques
ton giving such right OF appeal. Pendlng this
appeal ana after the cause had been heard and SUBJ
United TO TINS court, congress by the act OF March,
1863 repealed so much OF the act Of 1857 author
lied an appeal from the Judgment Of the Circuit
cburt TO tile supreme Court OF the United States,
the exercise OF any jurisdiction by this court APP
peas which have been or may hereafter be taken.
No decision was thereafter rendered by this court
the case and the court az the present term directed
argument 70 be made on the question OF Its ursdic
ton subsequent 70 such.repeaL ON the part OF the
government aud the military authorities 1t Is con-
tended that this court had no jurisdic-
ton Of TINS proceeding, It being an ap-
the act OF 1857 and that IL was held by the
the motion 10 dismiss made by tho authorities. The
act comforting the jurisdiction having been repealed
the jurisdiction ceased and the court mad thereafter
no authority TO pronounce any opinion or render
any judgment In the case. The constitution OF the
Quilted states gives u Congress the power 70 except
any or all OF The cases mentioned IN the jurisd.c-
ton clause or that Instrument from the appellate
rlsdiction OF the Supreme Court and II was clearly
the Intention OF Congress by TINS act TO so except all
the cases OF this KIND, whether pending or there
after 10 be brought This court never had appellate
Jurisdiction IN such cases until 10 was authorized by
the act Of 1867. Tnat act has been repealed; ana
after an act OF Congress has been repealed At must
be considered the same as N II had never been
passed This proposition Is claimed TO be 80 clear
that no argument can be required TO sustain 10. No
court can do any act In any case without jurisdic-
ton OF the subject matter, and any act
attempted to be done under such circumstances
Is simply VOID. IL can MAKE no difference at what
period In the progress OF cause the jurisdiction
ceases. After II has ceased no Judicial act can be
performed. In Insurance Company va. Richie Is
VOL, 55i the Chie Justice, delivering tho opinion
OF the court says."it - Gear that when the juris
dctiOn Of eau depends upon the statute the re-
peal OF the statute takes away the jurisdiction
And In that case the repeating statute. which was
passed during tao tendency OF the cause, was held
10 deprive the cour Of eli jurisdiction. This Is the
uniform doctrine Of this court aud OF oil courts The
causes winch were pending IN this court against
states were all dismissed by the amendment OF the
constitution denying jurisdiction aud no further
proceedings were had In those cases. In Norris vs.
Croker l5 Howard. f1o) this court affirmed and
acted on the same principle, and the exhaustive
gumcnt OF the present Chef Justice, then az the BAR
reported IN that case and the numerJuJ autlfertcs
there cited, render ans further argument unneCes-
cary
The opposite view is maintained at length on the
part OF Mctafdlc Senator's Carpenter aud frun-
bull aud Lnoch fOtcn for government, ana w. l..
SuarEey for appellant