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

u u
too plain for argument that the denial to this;
| court OF appellate Jurisdiction in this class OF
eases must greatly weaken the efficiency or the
writ, deprive the citizcn In many cases or it's
benefits. ami seriously hinder tho establishment
oil that uniformity In decisions upon questions OF
| personal rights which can only he attained
through appellate Jurisdiction exercised unon de-
ciaons Of courts OF original Jurisdiction. In the
particular class or cases OF which that before the
court is an example, whero the custody to which
| the prisoner ls rcmanded In that OF some authori-
" other than that OF the remantling court, 1t Is
evident that the imprisoned citizen, however un-
lawful MS Imprisonment may he In fact, is
appellate jurisdiction Sf. this court.
These considerations forbid any constructions
giving to doubtful words the effect OF withhold.
| ing or abrtdglng this Jurisdiction. They would
strongly persuade against the denial of the j,ris
diction even were the reasons for offering II less
We arc obliged to hold, therefore, that I'm all
cases where Clrcait Court OF the United States
I'd shs sSssese e Of Its original
mas, after inquiring into the cause Of detention
remanded him to tho custody from which he was
aided By the writ Of ce,tiorari, revise the decis @
Ion Of the Circuit Court, mud u it be found unwnr
| lawful restraint TO which he has been remanded.
| TIE ACT OF 1903.
| This conclusion brings us to the inquiry whcth-
er the lccond section OF the net or March 81 $685.
takes away OF affects the appellate Jurisdiction 0f
this court under the Constitution aud the acts Of
Congress prlor to 1857.
We have already expressed I'm the McCartiic
case al opinion that it does. But the point was
not carefully considered and we have re-exannin-
The circumstances under which the act OF 1888
was passed were peculiar. >r.f
! THE MeARpLE CASE:
On the 5th OF February, 1867, Congress passed
au 0ct to which reference has already been made
| extending The original Jurisdiction by hdbeds
corpus OF the district aud circuit courts nnd or
restraint of liberty iu violation OF the Constit
ton, treaties, or laws or the United Stales. This
act ant1rized M i, appeals to this court from judy
previous act conferring jurisdiction by hd6eds
corpus, unless by implication. Under this not
military force. petioncd the Circuit Court for the
Southern District OF Mississippi for the writ OF
turn was made. And, upon hearing, the court
decided that the restraint was lawful, and re-
Inandcd hip to custody. NcCardlc prayed an
allowed and perfected motion to dismiss the
appenl was nnde here and denied. The case wns
Ing been concluded, OH the 9th OF March, 1860,
was taken under advlsement by the court. Willie
the cause w9s thus held, aud before the court had
tile repeating net under consideration WAS intro
dmced into Congress. The net was carried
turned Wit his objections, rcpassed by the con-
stitutlonal majority In each House, and became
law on the 9Th Of March, within eighteen days
after the conclusion of the argument.
The cfect or the net was TO oast the court OF It's
lurlRdlcton OF tho particular case then before It
| on appeal, and 1t Is not to be doubted that such
~ns the effect intended. Nor will it be questioned
that legislation OF this character is unusual aud
naraiy 20 be lusllfHd, except upon some impcrious
Itwas doubtless within tho constitutional dls
cretion OF Congress- to dctermine whether such An
exgcncy cSisted but 1t ia not to he presumed that
| an act passed. under such circumstances was An
Tended 10 have any further erect than that plainly
II is quite SlsaS, that the words of the act reach
nos on.y ,S aH pending, but all future ap-
appear TO be Matted TO- appeals taken under i tnat
TIE words Of the repeating section are, THAT
Circuit Court to the S.prene Court OF the United
said Supreme Court on appeals Which have been Sa
ny or may be hereafter taken, be, and the same is
These words are not OF doubtful Interpretation.
eS sS2s only e much Of the act Of 1897 as
rlsdictlon by this court They areetea % only % ap p
peais and appellate Jurisdiction authorized by
that act They do not purport to touch the up
late Jurisdiction conferred ny the Constitution by
excepting from It any, cases not excepted by the
aet OF 1885, They reach no act except thc act OF
| 1857.
II hos been suggested, however, the act OF 1885,
80 far a ft provided for tho issuing OF wrts OF
eSS corpus 6y TINS court was alrsady repealed
that there are no repeating words In that uct II
It repealed the act OF 1850, It did 30 by impiica.
this effect upon tile act OF $780, would give It the
samc effect upon the acts OF 1883 and 1912. Ir one
|
Repeats by implication are not favored They
pugnancy; and never. we think, when the fsrmcr
i act cnn stand together with the new act. No
doubt the exercise OF appellate Jurisdiction under
the act OF 1889 was less convenient than under the
convenient mode or It's exercise does not neces st
sasy a, taxs away the Old and that this eeSt as
thority conferred by the new act is exnressy H
declared to be "in addition" to the AUTHORITY con-
fcrred by the former asts. Addition is not sub
Tho appeal given by this act OF 1867 extended,
indeed. the cases within the former acts; and the
larged the Jurisdiction by habeas co,:pas that il
seemed. NJ WAS observed I'm the NcCardle case,
| impossible to widen It." But this effect does
al grant OF Jurisdiction, and make 1t operate as
repeal OF Jurisdiction heretofore allowed.
CONCLUSION.
Our conclusion is that none of the acts prior
70 1897, authorLing this court to exercise appel
| late Jurisdiction by means Of the writ OF habens
corpus, were repealed by the act OF that ycar and
| that the repeating section OF the act OF 1858 Is
lmtedin terms, and must be limited in eff, ct, to
| the appellate Jurisdiction authorized by the act
We couid come to no other conclusion without
holding that the whole appellate Jurisdiction OF
this court. In cases OF ha6eds corpus conferred
cised from the foundation Of the government
hitherto, has been taken away, without tile
expression OF such intent, and by mere impll-
cation through tile operation OF the acts OF 1851
and 1853
The suggestion made Mt the bar that the proys-
lon OF the act OF 1889. relating to the Jurisdiction
OF tho court by habeds corpus, In repealed by the
effect OF the act Of 1867 was revised by the repeal
OF the repeating act has not escaped considera-
tion. We are Inclined to think that such would
be tho efIcct OF 1868; but having come to tho
clusiOn that the act OF 1850 was not repealed by
tile act OF 1867, IL IL not necessary 10 express an
opinion on that point.
@hc argument having bcen confined, by lIrec-
tl0n OF the court, to the question Of Jurisdiction
this opinion IL limited to that question. The juris
dlctlOn OF the court to issue the writ prayed for IL
affirmed Z
JUSTICE MIIIRIt DIssEETs.
Associate Justice SwaSne was understood to
remark that lie hnd beon requested to say for As
sociatc Justice Miller, who was absent, that the
latter uIsSentCd from the OniniOn.