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

Yergcr case. II does nothing more than affirm
the Jurisdiction OF the Supreme Court to issue
the writ prayed for-thnt Of hddeas corpus.
When YerScr shall be brought before the court
In obedience to this writ, the casc will come
up OIL its merits; and then the Reconstruction
acts may be pronounced unconstitutional and
then, again, they may not be. There Is abso-
lutcly nothing in the opinion which either
touches those acts or byimplication even re-
fcrs to them. Before the case thus comes up
on It's merits, Congress may oust the Court of
its jurisdiction, and leave Mr.. Ycrgcr in the
hands OF his military murdercrs. The opinion
reals as follows:
Supreme C0urt QJ the United States December
Term, lS68-NO. II fOrigndi.J-In The Tntlitc,. 0|
Hf'rdrd N. fe,Ver, petition .J0i' ha6caS corpIs
and crrttordri.-0pf,,ion or TIE Court 6p Chicj
Justice Chase.
STATEMENT OF TIE CASE.
Upon the prayer OF the petitiofcr, addressed to
Southern District OF Mississippi, u writ Of hahr,s
corpus was directed to ccrtnin military officers
holding the petitioner In custody, commanding
them to produce his body and abi,lc the order or
the Court.
In obedience To this writ the nctliioncr was
brought into court by MaIor-G neral II. s. Gran.
ger, WHO made his rctnrn in due rorni certifying
the cause OF detention TO be that the petitioner
had been arrested, and was held for triil upDn a
Charge OF murder 10y Il military commission under
the act OF Congress Of the 2d OF Nurch, 1867 TO
provide for the more efficient government Of the
rehel States.
Upon this return the petitioner was ordered
into custody OF the marshal, and the court pro
cecdcd TO hear argument. II was admitted that
the petitioner WAS u private citizen OF the State
OF Misslssppi; that he wns being tried ~ the
military commission without jury and without
pTcsentment or indictment by Il grand jury; and
that he was not and never had been connec,c,,
with the army or navy OF the United States, or
with the militia In active service In time or war or
invasion.
Upon this case the Circuit Court adjurIgctI that
the imprisonment Of the petitioner was lawful,
ptis he dismissed, and that the prisoner he re-
mandcd To the custody OF tile military officer by
whom llc lind bccn brought into court, to he held
ana detained for the purposes and TO answer TO
the charge set forth i'm the return.
To obtain the revcranl OF this orIcr AMI relief
from imprisonment, the pctitiOner now asks for n
writ OF Trti0rar To bring here for review he pro-
GccdingS 0f tic Circuit Court, and for Il wrli or
hG6rds corpus to he issued, under the authority of
this court 10 TIC oilccr 10 WHOSE custody he wus
renandcd.
ITS NroRrAScK.
Upon the suggestion Of the Attorney General,
made in view or the importunrc of the ullcstiuns
which Will probably arise II the case ls brought
to hearing, We have heard preliminary argument
upon the Jurisdiction of tile Court 10 issue the
writ prayed for, and have carefully considered the
rcasonings which have hccn addressed TO us.
This argument, by the direction Of the Court,
was confined TO the single point Of Jurisdiction,
and am now TO state the conclusions TO which
VIC have come.
THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.
The general question OF Jurisdiction In this case
resolves itself necessarily Into two narrower qucs
tions:
l. Has the Court Jurisdiction, In a case like the
present, TO inquire into the cause OF detention
detention be found 10 be in fact unlawful, by the
writ Of hdseas corpus, under the judiciary act OF
1882
2. IT, under that act the Court possessed the
Jurisdiction has II been taken AWAY 10y the second
section OF the act OF March 81, 1868, us U. $.
ruary 6, 1861, (Ii u s. Statutes, s6) M authorizes
appeals from Circuit Courts TO the Supreme
Neither Of thcsc questions Is now here. The
first has, several occasions, received very full
consideration and very deliberate Judgment.
case use SO nn9tiant , ~ laat Whlsn HOW in
Justify reconsideration OF the grounds upon
which, its Jurisdiction has bcen hitherto main-
tIlncd
Tile great writ OF habeas corpus has been for
centuries esteemed the hest aud only suncicnt
defence OF personal freedom.
MAGMA cHARTA.
In England, after long struggle. it was firmly
May %, 1919, e British Statutcs at Large Hal
lam Constitutional History, 1877 "for the better
Blackstone snys "ls frequently considered as
another magma chnria." Is Blackstonc's Com
nentnries, 1851
II was brought to America by the colonists, and
claimed rs among the immcinorial rights des-
cended 10 them from their ancestors.
1aere,oTG ,ho i,,S %en Tue
alton 0f IL common government engaged thcir de-
llherations in convention, this great writ found
permanent sanction In the Constitution. That
sanction IL in these words:
"Ihc privilege Of tile writ Of hdbcdS corpus
shall not be suspended unless when. in cases OF
rebellion or invasion, the public safety may re-
guiroit."
The terms OF this provision necessarily impl,
judicial action. In England nl The higher courts
were open 10 applicants for the WRIT and il IL
hardly snpp0siblc that under the new govern.
mcnt, founded Un more liberal iflcus ami priucl-
pies, any court would bc, Intentionally, closed 10
Them.
We md, accordingly, that the rirs, Congress
under the Constitution, nfter defining by various
sections OF the net OF September a. lTSY, tue jil-
risdictiOn OF the District Courts, The Circuit
Courts, aud the Supreme Court In other eases
HE heIora mentioned M ah ned r Sc 10 In;o , Hn m
shall have power 10 issuc writs or s'iTp mrias
hdt"ms corpus and all other writs not specially
provided by statute which may DC necessary
for the exercise Of their respective jurisdictions
and agreeable TO the principles ami usagcs of
law q s. Statutes, Si:l In The same section
ticcs OF hc Supreme Court ns well as the Judges
nr the District Court, shall have power to gran.
wrilS of habcHS corpus for the purpose Of an iI
qury INTO the cause of commitment. provided
that wris or hdbrHS corpus shall in case en-
tend to prisoners In jail, unless they are In cSto
dy under or by color nfrhe authority Hf the Unit
cd states, Or are committed for trial before some
court OF the same or are necessary 10 bG brought
into court 10 tcsiify.n
power 10 issue writs Of habrGs cOrptS is express
~ given by the terms or this section, has never
been questioned u would have been, indeed Il
remarkable anomaly if this Court, OrtI:incd by
the Constitution for the exercise, In the United
States, Of tile most important powers i'm civil
cases, Of all the highest courts Df England had
hccn denied. under u Constitution which nbsu-
lutcly prohibits the suspension OF the writ cy-
cept nilcrcNtraOrtlinary cNigcncies that power
In cases Of alleged unlawful restraint which the
hdtFds corpus act Of Charles ii expressly dcciur.
ed those courts 10 possess
APPELLATE AND ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
But the power vested In this Court Is, In an i'm.
porlant purtlcdlar, unlike that POSSESSED by the
English courts. The Jurisdiction OF this court is
conferred by the Constitution, and is appellate:
whereas that OF tile English courts though de-
clarcd and defined by statute, Is derived from the
common law. and IL original.
Tile judicial power Of the United States extends
10 all cases I'm law and equity arising under ilu
Constitution, the laws OF the United States anu
treaties made under their authority, and 10 large
classes OF cases determined by the character Of
the parties or the nature OF the controversy.
Tint part OF thls judicial power vested In this
Court Is defined by tho Constitution In these
words:
ain oil cases affecting ambassadors, other pub.
lie ministers, and consnls and those In which
Slate Shall be party, the Supreme Court shall
hnyc original jurisdiction. In all tho other c0gcq