The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-10-29
THE YERGER CASE.
THE DECISION OF THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT
IN. FULL.
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT sUs-
TAINED.
ON THE WRIT OF HA-
BEAs CORPUS TO BE HEARD.

The Washington papers bring us the full text
Of the opinion of Chief Justice Chase in the
Yerger case It does nothing more than affirm
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to issue
the writ prayed for-that Of hdbeds corpas.
When Yerger shall be brought before the court
in obedience to this writ, the case will come
up on it's merits; and then the Reconstruction
acts may be pronounced unconstitutional-and
then, again, they may not be. There is abso-
lutely nothing in the opinion which either
touches those acts or by implication even re-
fers to them. Before the case thus comes up
on its merits, Congress may oust the Court of
its jurisdiction, and leave Mr.. Yerger in the
hands OF his military murderers. The opinion
reads as follows:
Supres,e Court OF the United States, December
Term, 1sss-No. Il (0ri0indlJ-Ir1 the matter OF
EI,caru H. Yeroer, petition FOR haoeas corpus
and certtorai.- Opinion Of the Court on Chler
Justice chase.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon the prayer OF the petitioner, addressed to
the Circuit Court of the United States for the
Southern District OF Mississippi, writ oil hdoedS
corpus was directed to certain military officers
holding the petitioner in custody, commanding
them to produce his body and abide the order OF
the Court.
In obedience to this writ the petitioner was
brought into court by MajOr-G K. s. Gran
ger, who made his return, In due form, certifying
the cause of detention to be that the petitioner
had been arrested, and was held for trial. upon O.
charge of murder by amilitary commission under
the act Of Congress Of the I'd OF March, 1857, to
provide for the more efficient government OF the
rebel States.
Upon this return the petitioner was ordered
into custody Of the marshal, and the court pro-
ceeded TO hear argument. 1t was ADMITTED tnat
the petitioner was O private citizen OF the state
of Mississippi: that he was being tried by the
military commission without q jury and without
presentment or indictment by grand jury anu
that he was not aud never had been oonnecteu
with the army or navy OF the unlIed s.ases, W OF
invasion.
the Imprisonment Of the petitioner was lawful,
and passed an order that the writ OF haoeaS COT
manded to the custody OF the military oiicer oy
whom he had been brought into court, to be held
and detained for the purposes and to answer 10
the charge set forth In the return.
To obtain the reversal Of this order and relief
from Imprisonment, the petitioner now asks Tor
writ OF CertoraY1 to bring here for review the pro-
ceedings of the Circuit Court and Tor writ OF
hnoedS corpus to be issued, under the authority OF
this court to the officer TO whose custody he WaS
remanded
Upon the suggestion OF the Attorney General,
made In view OF the importance OF the questions
which will probably arise II the case is orongnt
TO hearing, we have heard preliminary argument
upon the Jurisdiction Of the Court TO issue the
writ prayed for, and have carefully considered the
reasonings which have been addressed TO us;
This argument, by the direction OF tne court
was confined to the single point OF Jurisdiction
and am now to state the conclusions 10 when
we have come.
THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.
The general question Of Jurisdiction in this case
resolves itself necessarily into two narrower ques-
tions: nm, -.
present, to inquire into the cause OF detention
alleged TO be unlawful, and TO give relief, the
detention be found to be in factunlawful, by the
writ Of hdbeds corpus, under the judiciary act OF
1882
Jurisdiction has 1t been taken away by the second
section Of the act Of March q, 1858, Q6 U. 3.
Statutes, ~ repeating 30 much OF the act Oh rep
ruary s, 1867 "a U. s: Statutes, 81 as aqtnorlzes
appeals from Circuit courts 10 the supreme
Neither Of these questions is now here. The
first has on several occasions received very full
consideration and very deliberate Judgment.
A cause so important as that which now in
yokes the action Of the Court seems, however 10
Justify reconsideration OF the grounds upon
which Its Jurisdiction has been hitherto MAIN
tanned.
centuries esteemed the best and only sun1cient
defence OF personal freedom.
MAGMA CHARTl.
In England, after long struggle, 1t was firmly
guaranteed by the famous hdoeds corpus act or
Nav o. 1872 rs British Statutes at Large, Hal,
Constitutional Hs 10 %sc
Blackstone says, ''is frequently considered as
another magma chartd." (S Blackstone's Com
mentaries, 1851
claimed as among the immemorial rights des-
cended to them from their ancestors.
Naturally, therefore, when the Confederated
Colonies became the United States, and the FORM
liberations in convention, this great writ found
permanent sanction in the Constitution. That
sanction is In these words:
WThe privilege Of the writ Of hd0eds corpus
shall not be suspended unless wnen, In cases OF
rebellion or invasion, the public safety may re-
quire it."
judicial action. In England all the higher courts
were open to applicants lor tne VIII, anu l !. IS
ment founded on more liberal ideas and princi-
pies, any court would be, Intentionally, closed to
them.
under the Constitution, after defining by various
sections of the act OF September "a, 1889, the ju
risdictlon Of the District Courts, the Circuit
Courts, and the Supreme Court IN other cases,
proceeded in tne l4tn SectlOn, W enact ludI dli
the before mentioned courts ofthe United states
shall have power to issue wrlts or Sctfe JdcidS,
haOeas corpus, and all other wrlts not specially
provided by statute which may be necessary
for the exercise OF their respective jurisdictions
and agreeable to the principles and usages OF
law.n q US. Statutes, 81.) In the same section
it was further provided, THAT either OF the JUS
tices OF the Supreme Court, as well as the judges
OF the District Court, shall have power to grant
writs of habeaS corpus for the purpose OF an in
uuiry into the cause Of commitment, provided
that writs OF hdbedS corpus shall in no case eX-
tend to prisoners in Jail, unless they are In custO
DIV under or by color OF the authority OF the Unit
ed States or are committed for trial before some
court of the same, or are necessary to be brought
into court to testify"
That this Court is one OF the courts to Which the
power to issue writs Of hdbeaS corpus Is express
been questioned 1t would have been, indeed, a
remarkable anomaly if this Court, ordained by
the Constitution for the exercise, in the United
States, OF the most important powers, in civil
cases, OF all the highest courts OF England, had
been denied under a Constitution which abso-
utey prohibits the suspension OF the writ, eX-
cept under extraordinary eXigences, that power
in cases OF alleged unlawful restraint which the
habeaS corpus act OF Charles ii expressly declar-
ed those courts to possess.
APPELLATE AND ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
But the power vested in this Court is, in an i'm
portant particular, unlike that possessed by the
English courts. The Jurisdiction OF this court Is
conferred by the Constitution, and is appellate;
whereas that OF the English courts, though de-
clared and defined bpstatute, is derived from the
common law, and is original
The judicial power Of the United States extends
rsrsx, .la- 81