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

70 tilh court ny the tlliftccnth fctiou OF the
Judiciary act Is. Under tho Constitution, al aI,.
peliatc jurisdiction, to be exercised only in tic
revision OF judicial decisions. And this judG-
construction OF this part ofthc Constitution.
IL Was pronounced In 1903. III 1907 The same
WSs Eyen 10 e prSys ,Sy o o the
corpus. In tue case of HOLMAN and Swartwout
The % power i TO issue the writ had been previously
exercised In Iiamiiton's case, 17g1, 60 Cr, <4S,)
and In EurfOrd's case, 1903, In neither Of which
cases does tho distinction between appellate and
original Jurisdiction appear tuhaYe hccn made.
In the case OF Boman and Swartwout, how
ever, the point was brought distinctly before the
court, tho nature Of the Jurisdiction was careful
" examined, and 1t WIS declared to bo appellate
The question then determined haa not since been
drawn into controversy. i92
DOCTRINE OF THE coHs,ITvrIok.
Tue doctrine Of the Constellation, and of the
cases thus fur, may be sumacd up In these pro-
i. Tho original jurisdiction as uls court cannot
be extended by Congress to any other cases than
those expressly defined by the Constitution.
2. The appellate jurisdiction OF this court con-
cases Within the judicial power or tic United
: ). This appellate jurisdiction ia Subject to such
guations as Congress, in the exercise Of It's dis
crction has made or may see at to make.
4: Congress not only hns rot excepted writs
OF habedS corpus and ndHddn,us! from this ap-
pcllatc jurisdiction. but has expressly provided
for The exercise of this Jurisdiction by means OF
We come. then, to consider the first great qucs.
tion made In tho case now before us.
We shall assume, upon the authority, OF tile de-
cisions referred to, what we should hold were the
question now for the first time presented to us,
that In proper this court under the act OF
as aer in cases Sc 'G sa@ s.y
tile exercise or Its appellate power reVfse the de
clslOns OF Inferior courts Of tho United States,
cd by them, except In cases within some limita-
tlon OF the jurisdiction OF Congress-
u remains to inquire whether the case before
ms Is u proper one FOR such Interpretation. Is II
within any such limitation In other words, cin
this court Inquire into the awfulne,s OF tctcp-
tion, and relieve from It, II found unlawful, when
the detention complained or IL not by civil a,i-
thority under q commitment madc bJ an inferior
court for trlnl In civil court, but by military ofh-
Gers for trial before military tribunal, after aI
examination into the cause OF detention by the
inferior court resulting In an order rcinanding
the prisoner to custody %
IL was insisted, inargument,, that "to bring a
casc within the appellate Jurisdiction OF thlS
court In the sense requisite to cnnble It to award
act, 1t Is necessary that the commitment should
appear to have been by tribunal whose dcci,
sions 0ri are subject to revision by tl.ls conrtn
the decision to DC revised upon habcds corpus
must havc bccn made by 'copSt OF the United
tlon OF this court, bat thar having been made, Il
must have resulted In an ortler OF commitment to
civil authority, subject to the control OF the court
making 1t. ~
JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
The first branch Of this proposition has certain
ly some support IN Hctzgcr'S easc, Is How, l70,)
mcnt made by q district Judge at chambers cNn-
not he revised here by habeds corpus, This case,
as was observed by Mr.. Justice Nelsdn in Kainc's
admit Of question VII Whether i can &c entirely g | re.
concllcd with the proposition, which we regard
the appellate JurIsdlction by habeGs So,piss eS.
authority Of the United states not Excepted from
But i is unnecessary to enter upon this inquiry
here. The action which We orc asked to revise
a 81 - S
branch OF the proposition, namcly that the aetl6n
mltment for trial In civil court and tho infer
ehce drawn from II TINT no relief can le had hero
rs o Meh se %
been remandctl by such coYrtf =. .
THIS prop9sitIon, certainly y petk Supported by
onos asserted, directly or Indirectly, the iorisdc
tion Of this court TO give relief IN Q case whese
commissioned. cor The iawfniness OF the detention
had been examined by the Circuit Court. for tho
Southern Dihtrict OF New York upon n writ OF ha.
bcas corpus, and the court had dismissed the
writ and remanded the prisoner 10 custody. In
this court relief was denied tue merits, but tho
3 sn o s
which Jurisdiction In that sase can be affirmed
md denied In this.
III Wclih CdSc, (io ltOWdfu, S05,l ING pGtltlOneT
was confined In the .pcnitentlnry, under n sen
tence OF death, conmuted by the President into O
sentence OF imprisonment for life. lie obtained .
writ OF hdbeas corpus from the Circuit Court OF
the District OF Columbia; was brought before the
court, end was remanded to custody. lie then
stod out writ Of habeas corpus from this court,
and his case was fully considered here. No OBJ.
jeotion to the Jurisdiction seems to have been
taken in argument though there, AZ here, 1t was
OF the petition for the writ was not>under the
direction OF the court by whose order the prison
or was remanded, but by = different and distinct
In this case OF Wells, however, Mr. Justice Cur
It's again dlssentcd, and on the point OF jurisdic-
ton Mr.. Justice Campbell concurred With him.
Tile other judges, though all, except one were OF
opinion that -the relief asked must be denied,
agreed In maintaining the Jurisdiction OF the
as left undetermined In Kaine's case, admitted
that tho jurisdiction wns asserted In this, and
sta,sti The ground Of Judgment anrming inrIs
the prisoner before It, and has redanded him,
this court, by u writ OF naoeas corpus, may ex-
anime that decision, and sec whether It be erro-
neOuS or not" -
Since this judgment Wa pronounced the juris.
dction In cases similar TO that now before the
court has not hitherto been questioned.
TIE ARGUMENT CONSIDERED.
We have carefully considered tile argument
against II, madc In this case, mud are satisfied
that the doctrine heretofore maintained Is sound.
The great and leading intent Of the Constitu-
lom and tile law must be Kept constantly In view
npnh The examination OF every question Of con.
StrilCtlOn.
That intent, in respect TO the writ Of habeas
corpus, IL manifest. IL IL, that every citizen may
he protected by judicial action from unlawful i'm
prisonmcnt. TO this end, as has been shown, the
act Of 1850 provided that every court OF the United
States should hnvc power to Issue the writ. The
Jurisdiction thus given by law TO the Circuit and
District Courts Is Origlnal that given by the Con-
stiiution and the law to this court IL appellate
Given In :;.ucral terms, II must necessarily cX-
tend 10 ni scs-so Which the judicial power or the
United Stalcs extends, other than those expressly
excepted.
AZ limited by the act Of 1850, it did not extend
TO cases OF imprisonment after conviction under
sentences OF competent tribunals nor to any
prisoners In jaii unless IN custody under or by
color OF tho authority Of the United States; or
committed for trial before some court Of the
United Sates; or required to he brought into
court to testify. hut this limitation IIus been
have boon extended, first, III 1S33 Is u. 8. Stat
tutcs, G3Il to Prisoners conllned under any au.
thorlty, whether Suite or National, for any act
done or omitted In pursuance Of q law OF the
Uaitcd States or or any order, PROCESS or decree