The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-10-26
TELEGRAPHIC NEWS.
Special telegram to tho Dispatch.
Habeas Corpus Case Of Ed. M. Yerger
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT MAINTAINED.
OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE
WASHINGTON, October %, 1876!

law OF the land The following leading
points in the luminous opinion of the Chief
Justice will be read with interest:
The petitioner, Edward NJ. Yerger, ap-
piled to the Circuit Court of the United
States for the Southern District of Missis-
sippi for writ Of ha6eas corpus in order to
be removed from the custody of certain
military officers who, under the name Of a
military commission, were trying the petit
toner for the crime of murder, he being a
private citizen of the State of Mississippi,
and never having been connected with
the army or navy of the United States, or
with the militia in active service, in time Of
war or INVASION" ~
After hearing the case the Circuit Court
adjudged that the Imprisonment of the Pc
titioner was lawful, and ordered that the
writ of hd6eas corpus be dismissed, and the
petitioner to be remanded to the custody OF
the military. .ss.4 - .g-ssEs .,a 1-..
To obtain the reversal of this order and
relief from continued Imprisonment the pc.
titioner applied to this court for writ OF
habeaS corpus.
The argument before the court was upon
the question Of jurisdiction. [After an in
teresting sketch Of the origin and history Of
the writ of habeas corpus, the Chief Justice
proceeded to state the grounds upon which
| they held the jurisdiction of the court.l
The great writ of habeas corpus found
permanent sanction in the Constitution in
these words : "The privilege Of the writ OF
gIol1 If hoc cd
when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the
public safety may require it." r ...
The terms of this provision necessarily inn
plies judicial action. We find, therefore,
that the first Congress under the new Con-
stitution enacted that all GO the courts of the
United States shall have power to issue writs
! of seire facias, hobeas corpus" etc. In the
same section it was further provided "that
either of the Justices Of the Supreme Court
| shall have power to grant writs Of ka6eas
corpus for the purpose of inquiry into the
cause of commitment" etc.
The Supreme Court, therefore, under the
act Of 1880, and subsequent acts, giving jul.
risdiction in cases of habeas corpus, may, in
the exercise of its appellate power, revise
the decisions of an inferior court, and re.
| lieve from unlawful Imprisonment, except
| within some limitations made by Congress
1t remains to inquire whether the pre-.
sent case is a proper one for s,Ichinterpreta-
ton. In other words, can this court inquire
into the lawfulness of detention, and relieve
from it if found unlawful, when the deten.
ton complained of is not by civil authority
under commitment made by the inferior
court, but by military officers, for trial be.
fore military tribunal, after examination
into the cause of detention by the inferior
! court, resulting in an order remanding the
prisoner to custody?
The action which we are asked to revise
was that Of tribunal whose decisions are
| subject to revision by this court.
We have carefully considered the argu.
ment against it, and are satisfied that the
| affirmative doctrine heretofore maintained
| is sound.
The great and leading intent of the Con.
] stitution and the law must be kept strictly
in view. That intent in respect to the writ
of habeas corpus is manifest. 1t is that
every citizen may be protected By Judicial
action from. unlaagful Imprisonment. This
court, in the exercise of it's appellate jurisdic.
| ton, may, by the writ of habeas corpus,
| aided by the writ Of certiorart, revise the
| decision of the Circuit Court, and if it is
found unwarranted by law, relieve the pri-
soner from the unlawful restraint to which
| he has been remanded. a.
1t has been suggested that the act of 1889,
so far as it provides for the issuing of writs
Of habeas corpus by this court, was re.
pealed by the act of 1867. If it repealed the
act of 1889, it do SO by implication; and
any implication which would give to it this
| effect upon the act of 1889 would give it
the same effect upon the acts of 1883 and
1912. If one was repealed all were re.
| pealed. ,re --..s
Our conclusion is that none Of the acts
prior to 1867 authorizing this court to exer.
else appellate jurisdiction by means of the
writ of habeas corpus were repealed by the
| act of 1867. We can come to no other con.
clusion without holding that the whole APP
pellate jurisdiction of. this court in cases Of
ha6eas corpus, recognized by law and exer-
cised from the foundation Of the Govern
ment hitherto, has been taken away without
the expression of such intent, and by mere
implication, through the operation of the
acts of 1867 and 1868.
The question now decided would come
before us regularly upon motion to dis
miss the petition for want of Jurisdiction
| That motion was not made; but, upon the
suggestion of the Attorney-General, the
| Court directed the point Of Jurisdiction to
be argued as preliminary question. Being
satisfied on this point, the proper order witt
be that the cause be set for hearing upon
the petition and affldavits, and this order
will be entered. LEAoINE.
Associated Press dispatch.
The United States Supreme Court---Ju.
risdictfOn TAX EN- In the Yerger Case.
Important Decision.
WASHINGTON, October 25.--In the SUI
preme Court this morning Chief Justice
Chase read an elaborate opinion In the Yer:
ger case, TO the effect that the Supreme
Court of the United States has jurisdiction
under the Constitution and the judiciary
act of 1851; that the act Of 1867, repealed
! by the act of 1858, does not act to take away
| the jurisdiction of this court in this case
| The writ Of hdbeGs corpus was referred to as
among our most valuable rights, and is
| o1,orfied nv the Constitutions The merits