The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-16
tion to thia court for the writ Of habeas corpus,
aided by certiorAri. And nrst, as to the

alueu py Q ceruofhks Anu uIst, ~ w INC
JURISDICTION.
The fourteenth section OF the act Of 1880 provides
that the several courts Of the United states
Shall have power to issue the wrs Of scre acas habeas
and AZ other wss no. specially provided for ey Tue
respective jursdieons Sgreea6y 10 The principles and
assgss law and thai either The supreme
Court well the Judges of the District Court shall have
the WIT Of habeas corpus the purpose o.
wrs Of habeas corpus shall in no cases extend to prisoners
In a anss; hey are 10 custody under or By eGS 81 he
before some court OF the same necessary to be brought
This statute at an early day was discussed before
this court, and 1t was then heidi. That the res
trctive words necessary to the exercise Of their
respective jurisdctions did not apply to the writ Of
habeas corpus. 2. That the provso extended 10 the
whole section. 8. That where the commitment was
by an inferior court OF the United States this court
In the exercise of Its appellate Jurisdiction could
Issue the writ TO inquire into the cause OF the COM
m.tment. (Ex parte Boman. 4 Or, 1o1)
In ex parte Crane which was an application for
mandamus, 1t was insisted by Judge Baldwin,
THAT there were but two cases In which the appel
late jurisdiction could be exercised to wit, appeals
and wrlts OF error; and that the writ OF mandamus
contains no order to remove cause or any pro-
ceedings therein to the court issuing it, nor has it
this efectn But the decision OF the Court was that
"mandamus to an inferior court Of the United
States is the nature Of appellate Jurisdiction That
in England it is awarded by the Chancellor, but in
the United States 1t Is expressly conferred on this
court which eXerc seg both common law and chan
Gerry powers, Is invested with appellate powers and
exercises extensive control all the courts OF the
United States" IL Is therefore apparent that the
exercise OF the appellate power Is not limited TO
any particular form; where the object Is TO revise
judicial proceeding the mode Is wholly immaterlal
and writ OF habeas corpus or mandamus, writ
may prescribe. 'pt e Story, Comm. Con-, S7d
When the habeas corpus Is used 1t may not be,
strictly speaking, power OF revision, which in
cudes properly the power to AFFIRM or reverse the
Judgment, and so establish or destroy It, but power
to arrest the execution OF void Judgment; 1t acts
directly on the effect Of the judgment, and colate
rally ON the Judgment ITSELF In Boiman's case the
CHIEF Justice SAYS
The question whether individual shall be Imprisoned
he on @ he s be
derent courts. decision that the Individual shall be
IN must Always preeede the application FOR The writ
nature. "A Cr., l0l)
so in ex parte Metager Justice Mclean says
1t be admitted there refinement denomnat-
ing that appellate power which exercised through the
N s sah L. h' s
commitment Ia criminal cases this Court can have no
yet as appears from the cases cited he cause Of commit
haoeas corpus AMI this ID done by the exercise Of appellate
power % How 1919
II may be said that the "causc OF the commit
menr 10 not to be found In the action OF the Circuit
Court now under consideration; that this Court
only remanded HIM to the custody in which 1t found
him.
Our answer Is that when Yerger filed his petition
claiming that his Imprisonment was In violation Of
the constitution, he then instituted suit; there
then case arising under the constitution to which the
judicial power attaches; and when a Judgment is
rendered denying tAe right claimed the appellate is
In the celebrated case OF Yates vs.. the People
IA john, Yates who had been imprisoned for con-
5GsmpI oy tae Unanceiior applied to the Supreme
writ the Court held the return to be good and
remanded him into custody, whereupon lie sued out
nls writ OF error. most elaborate discussion was
had to the character and effect of this Judgment
OF order. A majority OF the Court held "that the
was is the prisoner legally imprisonedS II the
Court decide IN the Affirmative the deprivation Of
liberty continues Is not this q final decision
OF the case, and does 1t not deprive the
party OF the remedy he solicits9 But admit
ting II Is not technically Judgment, yet
1t clearly comes within the definition of
coke. 1t ID an award. In the nature OF Judgment.
And as habeas corpus Ia IN the nature OF writ OF
error 30 10 the determination upon 1t In the nature
OF Judgment The same question has been con-
sidered by this Court Holmes was arrested by Gov
ernor Jennson, OF Vermont who ordered him to be
sent TO Canada TO answer an Indictment. He applied
Tor habeas corpus to the Supreme Court OF the State
and, on coming IN OF the return thereto, was re.
manded to custody. writ of error was sued out
10 this under the twenty-lfth section or the
Judiciary act and 1t was held by the Chief Justice,
and Wayne, Justices that this was a 'onal iudg
ment' in .tsuit' wshin the meaning OF this sec
in which he concurred In this view, on thus point
OF the case Baldwin, Justice, alone dssented.
In very recent case the question was presented
under the twenty -second section, wnen the Court,
speaking through Nelson, Justice, declared that no
doubt was entertained that the judgment was final
dctIon was the want OF the property value required
by tnat section. pratt vs. Fltznugh, Black
2I2l The same principle was applied IN the case OF
Weston vs. The City OF Charleston. e Pet, 4ie.)
Prohibition was applied for TO prevent the collection
Of an unconstitutional tax. This was refused and
the refusal was held 10 be o final Judgment in suit
We turn back to the case In re KANE, decided in
Ia How, loo. kaine, fugitive from Great Britain,
States He applied to the Circuit Court for q habeas
corpus, and on return thereto remanded to Gus
tody. Yhereupon he applied to this court for a
dichon-though, as il would SEEM was not made at
the bar-was raised very distinctly by Judge Curtis.
Tie case Is fully considered as to the facts, and
the opinion or the Court delivered by Judge Cairon
ana concurred IN by Mclean, Grier and Wayne, Jus
tees, thus concludes:-"We refuse the motion on its
merits. We are not disposed, under the circum-
stances, to exercise the jurisdiction OF the court.u
P ll7.l Judge Curtis strenuousy insisted that the
court had no jurisdiction, on the ground that the
action OF tho Circuit Court not 1.-THE cause OF the
commitment'--that 1t created new cause but
THIS argument Is combated by Judge Nelson who,
after reviewing all the cases heretofore decided,
SAYS
nation lo prisoner detained not on the original warrant
but under the authority of the writ of habeas corpus The
writ while the proceedings under II pending
keeping Of be prisoner are entirely under the direction
This opinion is very emphatlcally approved by the
Chez Justice and Justice Daniel.
Again, IN eX parte Wells rs How, 30T)-decided
as late as 1S55-Wes, who had been convicted OF
murder, received pardon from the President, COM
mutng his sentence to inprison nent for llfe. lie
petinoned the Circuit Court OF this district for q
habeas corpus, Claiming that the pardon was abso-
lutte and tie condition void. On hearing OF the
return the Circuit Court dismissed the writ anu
remandod him to custody On his application TO
this for habeas corpus all the Judges except
Curtis ana Campbell, Justices, assumed Jurisdiction
ard denied the WRIT on the merits. In his dissenting
opinion Judge Curtis says:--
In Kaine's case examined with the Jurisdiction OF
this Court TO issue wrts OF habeas to inquire
of commitment then to the conclusion that the
fact that the Circuit Court had the cause oP
commitment and refused TO discharge the prisoner did
enable this Court by writ of habeas corpus
the OF Commitment Though subsequent reec-
ton has confirmed the opinion then formed should have
acquesced in the Jurisdiction assumed this case II ma
ory Of the Court In Kanes had decided contrary
my opinion But the question then left undecided ana
In THIS for the first time my judgment has jurlsdc.
ton been the ground that Circuit Court has
had the prisoner before aud has him. this Court
hy writ OF hahaaa corpus examine that