The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-09
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Liabilities Of Military Officers in Time of
War--Jurisdictiom of the Supreme Court
The Texas Bond Case.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8, 1869.
The following cause, No. l03 from tho District
Court for the Western district of Arkansas, was
taken up:-
wei, deceased, Plaintiff IN Error VS.. Irwin W.
Fuller.-lhe defendant here was lieutenant colonel
such, while stationed in Arkansas, seized GER
s ANA as !; + claimed, disposed Of It pa5
Crawford County Circuit ocurs for the stat as
error ut the May term, 1865. in that court. The
defendant making no appearance, Judgment for
at the same term, defendant appeared and moved to
set aside Judgment, -..eging meritoreus defence.
He also filed motsoh to dismiss the case Tor the
reason that at the time OF the alleged trover he was
O military ofiicok and acquired possession and dis
posed OF the cotton as such officer under direction
the United states and for mis- use and bene-
ut; that ne was protected from prosecution by
the land Failing to obtain new trial, and also
In his effort to dismiss the action, the defendant
petltioned the Judge Of the United States District
Court Tor the western district OF that State, under
the act OF March B. 1862 for writ Of error or other
process to remove the cause from the State court to
the Circuit Court OF the United States. The cause
was accordingly removed and coming on for trial,
pamtin in declined to join issue and permitted
Judgment t to De J rendered BY default d,smssng the
Scarlet take nothing Tor his false clamor.n Pend
ing the n. hearing there however, plaintiff in error
that the court had no authority under the
constitution and laws Of the United states
ruled, and judgment being rendered by default an
appeal was taken to this court the only question
presented q BENG the Of the th
plaintiff in error 1t Is contended that tnis Is not
case within the class OF OF which the federal
courts are given jurisdiction by the constitution
which has disposed OF and vested the entire
jurisdiction Of tose courts and left nothing for Con-
gress 10 give The constitution gives original juris
dlction in certain cases to the Supreme Court ana
In Others appellate urlsdiction and it perfectly
aI1as1,sn INC, now many courts Congress may
OF case not embraced within the
classes mentioned in that instrument The entire
In establishing new courts, can create or specify
new cases. or give these courts Jurisdiction OF cases
ton failed to vest the Jurisdiction at all. And II the
constitution failed to vest the jurisdiction there is
none for Congress- as Wen as the courts lives by
either class, nor does 1t approximate either class
therein named. 1t Involves NO right question
under the constitution, under an act OF Congress.
under treaty. 1t involves no questions
between States or citizens OF different States. 1t
respect but purely local action on the part Of one
individual against another for damages allowed
under the law Of the state. The defendant In error
power belongs exclusively TO Congress- under article
three sections two and three OF the constitution,
udicalcan dispute 1t or nterpose to defeat It, The
power to remove certain from State to United
states courts was exercised as early 1885, and the
frat attempt OF state court 70 deny the right was
promptly rebuked by this court, In Gordon VS..
Sougest, 16 Peters, o. Statutes similar to that OF
March 3, 1883. are found scattered throughout our
national legislation and their consutHtionallty is
nn9uestloned tn, the cause was argued by Messrs:
submitted the printed briefs OF A. H. Garland for
the plaintiff in error
No. 100. Clark et al. vs. Reybum.-This cause
came from the Circuit Court Tor the District of Kan
sas, where bill was filed TO Iorecose mortgage
upon certain property in the city OF Leavenworth.
Judgment Argued by Judge Black for appellee and
submitted on printed brief Of L. u. Wheat Tor appel
lant
The Court took up the case of John H. Mckee,
claimant and appellant, vs.. the United States;
appeal from The District Court OF the Southern Dis
trct OF Illinois. This is cotton and involves
the validity OF the Treasury orders and military per-
mits to go beyond the military lines for trading pur-
poses. Also the case OF Samuel b. Paul vs. the Com
monwealth of Virginia It grows ont of n nresent
ment IN the Circuit Court Of Petersburg against Paul
company OF New YORK without a license .'" Tie
accused voluntarily pleaded guilty, and the result OF
the trial was conviction. The case was then taken
where the conviction was affirmed, and Is now
brought here
No. Q (originaD. The State Of Texas vs.. White and
Chiles, et din this case, which was decided at the
last session OF the court Mr. Evarts as counsel for
Hardenburg one OF the defendants, moved for leave
to take further proof on question reserved
In the decree as to the effect OF the pay
ment Of bonds TO Hardenburg claimed to
have been made by the Secretary OF the
Treasury. This ia the case OF the bonds OF the
United States held by the State OF Texas which
were disposed Of by the rebel authorities In the
early part OF the war, and which were recovered by
the loyal State, as now organized by the decree OF
the Court The Court directed the motion to be fled
stating that 1t would be disposed Of on Monday.
Colonel Phillips, OF Counsel for L. NJ. Yerger, read
the agreement entered into between the ATTORNEY
General and the counsel for the defence In July
last providing that the shall be brought before
the court, and asked perm ssion to lie the petitions
for writs OF habeas corpus and certlorar also thar
the case be set for hearing Friday next. Attor-
ney General Hoar hoped that more remote
day would be fixed, In order that he
might have time to properly present the case as he
desired first TO argue the question TO the jurisdc.
tion OF the court Mr. Carlisle, for the defence,
trusted the whole case would be argued and settled
at one time, and not by instaments. The Court
directed that the petitions be led and gave notice
that on Monday q day would be fixed for argument.
No. Is toriginal Benjamin Brown et al, Petitien-
ers.This Is the matter OF the petition for habeas
corpus OF certain parties charged with murder in
the state OF Texas, and now being tried or about
being tried BY military commission. Motion for
leave to file petition Tor writ OF habeas corpus and
ceri0rari granted. The Court intmated that de-
cslon In the matter would be made on Monday.
Messrs ID. W. Barzza, OF Texas; A. W. Scharit, OF
Missouri. and O. A. Lochrane, OF Georgia, were
admitted No the bar.