The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-10-16

error; the act Of 1868 does except Jurisdiction
i sss the which
vousy exercised dEx parte Mccards, Wall, bl6)
FINALLY.
As TO the argument a6 IN conuene,atf we are con-
tent TO use the language OF Mr.. Justice Nelson:-
has been ssssd that s would
5 Re unSn e S " aass en-
ss9y AND s By ne s he s
Of involved md upon The ay Of The
had BEEN made State court however small
hs Inc Ts s yni
not as dear to him and entitled to be guarded Win
the supposed Such
Sos Sfsn H. hsys ns sp win
Ply add IN the language Of Chief Justice Denman in the case
would Pc tamperns ths saSlsc, g
and deal with this has been formerly dealt wih I'm re
kaine, Ia How, 1859
r., POINTS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. r..,
FIRST Poi1N-The Supreme Court or the united
States grant writ or habeas corpus ad subucl-
endum only in the exercise OF its appellate urlsdc.
ton, and by means OF such writ can revise only the
proceedings OF those tribunals over which and In
respect to which has appellate conro! ana autnor
Boiman and swartwout a Cranch, is, who had been
committed by the Circuit Court OF the District OF
Columbia on charge Of treason against the United
upon the construction Of the fourteenth section OF
the Judiciary act OF september "a, 1889 Statutes,
Si1, which proydeS:-
(supreme Court Circuit Court and District Court shall have
II
ss Ike Ike a
either Of s e the s vo as w a. s
q habeas he purpose q inquiry into he
of that w s sa IN
custody under or by color o. the authority Of the United
same, necessary be brought into court to testify
1t was held that by the sound construction OF this
section the power to award wrlts OF naoeas corpus
IN m ut
given to the Supreme Court. and the argument was
rejected that the restrictive words OF the first SEN
tence of the section (which may be necessary to the
exercise Of their respective jurisdictions" limited
the power TO the award Of such wrts Of habeas cor
pus as are necessary to enable the courts OF the
United States mentioned in the act to exercise their
respective Jurisdictions III some cause which they
are capabie Of finally deciding 10 tue objection that
an inquiry by habeas corpus into the cause OF com.
mitment IN criminal case was an exercise OF original
jurisdiction In case not within the constitutional
grant OF original jurisdiction TO the Supreme Court
Chief Justice Marshall repled:-"Tbe jursdlc-
ton which the court is now asked to exer-
else Is clearly appellate. 1t is the re-
vision Of decision OF an inferior court, by
which citizen has been committed TO JAIL Before
the case OF BolHan and Swartwout, tue Court had
issued writs Of habeas corpus in two cases of COM
mitment for criminal offences. The first was the
United States vs.. Hamilton % Dallas. ~, In which
the prisoner was charged with high treason, capt.
tai offence, ana had been committed upon warrant
OF the District Judge OF Pennsylvania. The prisoner
the Judiciary act Il Stat, 91 authorized this. The
second was Buiord's case % Crancn, 4iS where the
"
certain Justices OF the peace, ana brought before
the Circuit Court OF the District OF Columbia on
o o1es corp u w nc ater r m an
case IA How, l24), remandng the prisoner to jail
until he entered into recognizance to keep the
peace. IL was under this order OF the Circuit Conr
that Buford was imprisoned when he petittoned the
Supreme Court for writ OF habeas corpus.
After Bolman and Swartwout the case next In
order is Elk parte Kearney Il Wheaton, 3S) which
was an application for hapeas corpus by prisoner
In custody nnder commitment OF the Circuit Court
q a a
ness. The Court said two questions arose-First,
whether this Court has authority to issue habeas
corpus where person is in Jail under warrant or
order OF any other court OF the United Sates Sec
ondiy, whether if it have case is made to JUS
first question, 1t is unnecessary to say more than
that the point has already passed In rem. judicaum
the ground that the writ was not proper remedy in
case Of commitment for contempt BY court OF COM
petent jurisdiction.
Elk parte Watkins e Peters 1881 was the case OF |
prisoner in jail In the District Of Columbia, under
Judgment OF the Circuit Court IN criminal prosecu-
ton. The application for the writ was refused on
the ground that the Judgment was Of court OF gen.
era ana final criminal jurisdiction and justified the
Tx parte Watkins & Peters, 56s) was the case OF
party In custody under wrtls OF capias ad satsfa-
trict OF Columbia ana the ground OF the application
tnat the Marshal had not brought him into
court on the return day Of the writs bat detained
On The question OF jurisdiction the Court said:-
The question turns this whether it exercise OF
as the present The in which the eonsa
q p ss Be s court Ss NAV bs
since the of 1889 section fourteen has clearly authorized
sdered as The act Of the Circuit Court beg Judicial
ssoa mnS Se hesu that the nd %
facienu usthes the present detaner and should remand
the prisoner would be clearly exercise of appea
Jurisdictions for II would be revision and confirmation OF
the act of the Court below.
George Holmes, plaintiff in error, VS.. Silas II, Jen.
nIson ct al. IA Peters, 540-A writ OF habeas cor
pus was, on the petition OF George Holmes issued
by the Supreme Court OF Vermont and on tue return
thereto by the Sheriff. stating the Of the ov
ernor to be the cause or his detention. he was
remanded by the Court Holmes prosecuted s,g , writ
The writ OF error was dismissed, the Court being
equally divided
ton by an alien for habeas corpus TO obtain the
custody Of his infant child. Tine application said
jurisdiction In the matter upon which 1t Is foundedn
Elk parte Dorr q Howard, 1o3) was an application
for the writ by party imprisoned on State process;
but the Court refused it..
Barry vs.. Mercien ct al. Is Howard 1o3) was case
brought up by writ Of error to the Circuit Court of
the Southern District OF New YORK, in which the CIR
cut Court refused to grant writ OF habeas corpus
the custody Of its mother. 1t was held that the
Supreme Court had no appellate power in the case
an6 the writ was dismissed for want OF jurisdiction
Metzer's case Is Howard, 1867 was that OF an april
cation for the writ OF prisoner committed to the
chambers, under the French treaty OF extradition
This Court refused the writ on the ground That there
is no form IN which an appellate power can be eXer
cised by 1t over the proceedings OF district Judge
his chambers. "He exercises special authority,
and the law has made no provision for the revision
of his Judgment. IL cannot be brought before the
District Circuit Court; consequently cannot, in the
nature OF an appeal be brought before this court.
The exercise OF an original jurisdiction only could
reach such proceeding, and this has not been given
by Congress II they have not the power to confer IT,
In re Kaine "a Howard, 1881, prisoner commit
ted by United States Commissioner, under the
British extradition treaty, applied TO the Circuit
Court OF the United States for the Southern District
or New York for q writ OF habeas corpus which was
granted; and upon hearing before the district
Judge presiding In that court the prisoner was re-
manded TO the custody OF the marshal. lie then
presented petition TO the circuit Judge, addressed
to the justices OF the supreme Court, for
writ OF habeas corpus. motion was
also made In the Supreme Court for wrfts OF
hapeas corpus and certiorari, and one question
argued was in the language OF Mr. Justice Nelson,
whether "tne prisoner was or was not held In con-