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

w tHiS CnuT' Dy Ihc tnlttCcufh Ets.tlDli of tie
Juniciary act is. under I'll" Constellation, an ap.
pciintc jurisdiction, to DC exercised only in tic
revision Of judicial decisions. Aad this j,ld:.-
mcnt has ever since been accepted us fixing tI,.
construction Of this part of the Constitution.
IL was pronounced In 1903. In 1907 The same
construction was given 10 The provision Of the
fourteenth section relating to the writ or hdbrdS
corpus in the case Of HOLMAN ana Swartwoui
e Or, l00.)
The power TO issue the writ had been previously
exercised III iiamiltons Case, i795, &; Cr., t4s,)
and In Hurior,'s ease, 1903, In neither Of which
eases does the distinction between appellate uiiIl
original jurisdiction appear To have hccn made.
In tile case OF holman anu Swartwout. how
ever, the point was brought distinctly before the,
court, the nature Of the Jurisdiction was careful
~ examined. and IL w declared so be appellate
The question then tctcrInincd haa not slncc been
drawn Into controversy.
DOcrRIEH OF THE CONSTRUCTION
The doctrine Of the Consultation, and of the
puSitious:
1. rhc original jurisdiction sr u,ls court cannot
be extended by Congress tom: other cases than
those expressly defined hy the Constitution.
=. The appellate jurisdiction OF this court con-
ferch by the Constitution extends 10 ull other
States.
). This appellate jurisdiction is subject to such
exceptions nnd must be exercised under such re-
Euations aS Congress, in the exercise OF lis dis
erection, has ma,.c Or may SEE at to make.
4. Congress not only has rot excepted writs
pcllatc juristictl0u, hut has expressly provided
for Tie exercise OF this jurlHdictioE by means or
these wrils.
We come, then, to consider the first great ulcs.
lion mauc IN tho case now before ua
We shall assume, npun the authority or lie dc-
cisIons referred To, wint We Should hdd the
question now for the Ilrst time presented to ls,
that in proper case this court, under The act Of
l7Sp, and under all The subsequent acts, giving
Jurisdiction M IN eases Of habeas sorla.S, may, in
cisOns OF Interior courts uf the United Sintcs
and relieve from unlawful imprisonment authoriz-
ctl by them, except In cases within some llmita-
lion OF tile Jurisdiction OF CONGRESS-.
remains 10 Inquire whether the case before
ms proper one for such interpretation. Is II
within amy such limitation III other words, can
this cnurt inquire Into tic lawfulnn.is or ,ctru
ton, aiid relieve from II, If found unlawful, when
the detention complained Of is no, by civil au-
th0rity under 4 commitment made bJ m inferior
court for trial IN civil court. but !y military Oi,i-
GERS for trial before military tribunal, AFTER an
Inferior court resulting In an order rcluandinn
the prisoner 10 custody
IL was insisted in argument, that "to hiring n
CASE within the appellate jurisdiction Of this
court III The sense requisite to enable it to award
the writ or hd6pas C0i7,uS, under the judiciary
act, IL is necessary that the commitment Should
appear to have been by q tribunal whose dcci-
sioms are subject tn revision by this court"
THIS proposition seems To assert not only that
the decision TO he revised upon habras corpus
must have bccn nlatle by couSt Of the United
States subject to the ordinary appellate jurisdic.
ti0n oi This cuurt, but that having been made, IL
civil authority, subject 10 the control OF the court
making II.
JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
The first branch Of this proposition has certain
ly some support In MctZgcr's eaec, Is How. lTB)
In which II Hns held that an order Of commit
mcnt made hy II district Judge Mt chambers can
as was observed by Mr.. Justice Nelson In Kainc's
case, "a How, l0,,) stands aioiic; and It may
admit Of question whether 1t can nc entirely re-
concllch with the proposition, which we regard
as established upon principle and authority that
the appellate Jurisdiction by hGbeGs corpus en-
tends to nj. cases Of commitment by the judicial
an fnI frn,
IL hy Cungrcss. -.
Hut 1t IL unnecessary to enter upon this inquiry
here. Tie action which we are asked to revise
WA that of u tribunal whose decisions are sub
jcet to revision by ths court In ordinary modes
We need consldert therefore. only tho second
branch or the proposition, namely, that the action
OF Tie Inferior court must have resulted In COM
mitmcnt for trinl In civil court, and the infer
encc drawn from 1t that relief can bc had here
by hdbeds corpus from imprisonment under mill
tary authority, TO which the petitioner may have
been remandcttby such court. :%'-'
THIS proposition certainly, Is not, Snpnortcd by
authority. In Kafnc's case ALI theSssslsey except
ono, nsScrtcd, directly or Indirectly the Iurlsdc
the detention was BY order of a United States
commissioner. The lawfulness OF the detention
had been examined by the Circuit Court for the
Southern District Of New York upon u writ OF hu-
6eds corpus, and the court had dismissed the
writ nnd rciIiandcd the prisoner 10 custody. In
this court relief was denied on the merits but the
jurisdiction was denied by one jnigG only. And
II Is tilnicult TO ind any substantial ground upon
which jurisdiction in that ease can be affirmed
In Wcll's case, us Howard, 30S, y the netltloner
wns confined In the pententiary, under II sen
tcncc OF death, coiamutcd by the President into
sentence OF imprisonment for life. He obtained
writ Of habedS corpus from the Circuit Court OF
she District Of Columbia; WAS brought before the
court. and was remanded to custody. lie then
sned out writ OF hdUPdS corpus from this court
and his case was fully considered here. No oh.
jectiOn To the Jurisdiction seems tn have been
taken In argument though there, us here it WAS
evident thnt the actnal Imprisonment At the time
OF the petition for the writ was not under tho
direction Uf the court by whose order the prison.
or was remandcd, but by different and distinct
In this case OF Wells, however, Mr. Justice Cur
us again dissented, and on the pOini Of jnrsdic-
tiDn Hr. Justice Campbell cOncurrcd With him.
The other Judges, though all, except one, were OF
opinion that the relief asked must he denied
agreed In maintaining the Jurisdiction or the
court. Judge Curtis, who regarded the qlIcRtl ion
NJ left undetermined In Kanc's clsc, admitted
that the jurisdiction was asserted In this and
istnn to to be that las the Circuit . Court as s,,s b,I
the prisoner before IT, and has rea2ndctl him.
this court, by q writ OF hdteds corpus, may en-
anime that decision, and see wliathor 1t he errO.
ncouS Or uOt.n
Since this judgment was pronounced the juris
dicton tn cases similar to that now before the
court has not hitherto been questioned.
THE ARGUMENT CONSIDERED.
We have carefully considered the argument
against it, made In this case, aU'l are SutiHfied
tla Tie doctrine heretofore maintained Is sound.
T!IG great and leading intent uf the Cunstitu.
npnH ilc examination OF every question OF con
SlrItci ion.
That intent. in respect To the writ OF habras
corpus, is manifest. 1t Ii, that every citizen NAV
bc projected by )nciul action from unlawful i'm
prsonmcnt. 10 Ibis end, az has been shown, the
ac oi lIS9 provided that every court 0f the Unitc,
States should have power to issue the writ. The
jurisdiction thus given by law t0 the Circnt and
District Courts IL original; that given by the Con-
stiiutiOn and the law to this court is appellate
Given In general terms, II must necessarily OK
end Ia all cscsio which The judicial power OF the
United States extends, other Than those expressly
excepted.
As limited by the act of 1882 il did NOT extend
10 cases of imprisonment after conviction under
sentences OF competent tribunals; nor To any
prisoners In jn unless in custody under or by |
color OF The authority of The tinted States; or |
committed for trial before some court Of the !
Unhcd States; or required 10 hr brought into |
cour' 10 irstiif. ,ut This limitation has been
narIIwcd AMI the benefits OF The writ |
have hccn eN:end,l first, In iS:Ei, Is u. y. Stat
tuIcsi. 'H To Prisoners confined under any a,,.
thority, wlietlcr State or National for ANY act |
lone or omitted In pursuance of Il law OF the |
United States nr ur any order process, or decree
III any IndyeUr Gnnri Of the United States; then |
In tSi2, u u. SStauics, 531,) TO prisoners being
subjects or cEiZcns Of foreign States In cstotly
under National nr State authority for acts done or