The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-10-16
COURTS

Ssurusnn CouRf on rHn UxrrxD srArrs--
FLi5ev, 4 Oso6sr Is, 1e69.--On motion Of
Mr.. Attorney General Hoar, WalbiiAgc A.
Field, ESQ.,, Of Massachusetts,, was admitted
70 prscticsas an attorney and counsellor Of
nm No. oo " (ohgiuai.l EIparte. EdvardM.
Yerger, petitioner; on motion for vrlts Of
Of Jurisdiction was argued BY Mr.. p. Phillips
and Mr.. Carlisle in support Of the same, and
b. Mr.. Attorney General Hoer In opposition
s6Bfot6. 'r. IN
Adjourned until Monday morning, at II
o'clock.
Ths case OK parte Edward NJ. Ycrger,
mentioned above, 10 q case Of national Import
anco, and the nrst argument therein before
Judge Chase, in chambers, on the 14th Of
Il will be remembered that AFTER hearing, on
that, occasion, the arguments Of Messrs.
Philips and Carlisle, for the petitioner, and
OF Attorney General Hoar, for the United
States, the Chief Justice withheld his decis-
Ion, and tho whole matter was referred TO the
Supreme Court Of the United States. We
have since mentioned that upon that case
coming TO the Supreme Court, that court
fixed yesterday for argument upon tho ques-
tod Of juflsdlctlou. Tho case Ia as follows.
The petitioner, T., NJ. Yerser, on, the 29d day
Of July, 1859, hled his petition In the Circuit
Court Of the United States for the Southern
District OF Mississippi, setting forth that he
was . citizen Of the said State, In nowlse
connected with the military service Of the
United States; that he was held In custody
for trial before military commission for an
offence alleged 10 have been committed
"against the peace and dignity Of the State"
and praying for writ Of habeas corpus that
tho legality Of his commitment may be In
uulred into. s.
Ths writ was Issued, and or the 22d Of
July he was produced Id open court by
Brevet Major General r. 8. Granger, where
upon Il was ordered by the court, that "the
said Edward NJ. Yerger DO placed In the
custody Of tho marshal Of the Southern dis
trict OF Mississippi, TO be by him held and
detained In custody until the further order
and Judgment Of the court"
Afterwards, the "cause coming on 10 be
heard,o the following entry was made:
"The court therefore accordingly adjudges,
that the imprisonment Of the prisoner for
tho causes In the return to the writ Of habeds
corpus, In the case set forth, are sufficient
by said Granger. 1t IL therefore ordered,
| that the writ DO dismissed, and tho prisoner
remanded TO custody Of said Brevet Major
| General r. 8. Granger, to be by him held
and detained In custody for the purposes,
and TO answer TO the charge as set forth In
the return OF said Granger" On these facts
the petitioner POUNDS his application to this
conrt for the writ Of habsas corpus, aided by
| o eerfiordrt. .I.. -.t....
| Quite number Of persons, including Gen.
| Butler, Hon. Reverdy johnson and other
gentlemen of eminence were present.
Messrs. P. Philips and j. M. Carlisle for
the petitioner, Yerger, contended that under
the fourteenth section Of tho judiciary act
Of 1850, the Supreme Court had Jurisdiction
In this case, because the petitioner, when
brought Into the circuit court Of the South
| ern district Of Mississippi, was 10 the power
| and under the control Of that court, and was,
by an order Of that court, transferred again
TO the Jurisdiction Of the military authori-
ties. Yerger having by his petition insttu-
ted suit, there was thus q case arising
under the Constitution Of the United States,
and when q judgment Is rendered denying
the right claimed, the appellate power Of tho
Supreme Court Is properly invoked.
Tho Attorney General quoted several cases
to show that where the action Of the Circuit
Court was not 'the cause Of commitment"
as where United States commissioner held
q prisoner under special act Of Congress,
this court had no Jurisdiction on esrtiorari or
habsds corpus, even though application had
been made to the Circuit Court for the benefit
Of such writs and the application refused.
Beside, even lfthis court had ever possessed
such Jurisdiction, 1t was taken away by the
act Of February 8, 1867.
AT the close Of the argument, the Court
held the case under advisement.