The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-04-13
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Testing the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Court
in Criminal Casss-Can the Supreme Judges
Discharge Prisoners on Habeas Corpus
Who Have Been Indicted by
Grand Juries and Condemned
by the Circuit Courtsl

The following are the proceedings III the Supreme
Courtto-day:-
Er parte Jefferson Greer, on habeas corpus to the
Marshal for the district OF South Carolina. From
Greer Is neld by the Marshal OF the United States
under aonr 6enca en- warrant issued by the
eony under ps cng 1H
Upon this state OF facts the United States
maintain that this Court has not Jurisdiction to dis
charge the prisoner, even though IL inquire into the
cause or commitment and the argument Is thls:-
Article section OF the constitution. after defn
Ing the original Jurisdiction OF this Court declares
that sin all other before mention ed the Su-
preme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction both
us 10 law ana iacts Win sucn exceptions anu under
directed" Tnus the appellate jurisdiction OF the
Court is left completely WITHIN The CONT Of Of Con-
gresS, except that 1t cannot be extended beyond
the limits set upon 1t by the constitution.
Section 10 OF the Judiciary act declares that the
from the Circuit Court and the Courts OF The several
States In cases hereinafter specially provided for,
provision alluded to by the thirteenth section and
expressly limits the operation OF wrlts OF error
from this Court to the Circuit Courts to final
suits Ill equity. And the second section
OF the act OF 1903 authorizes appea,s TO
this Court from final judgments or DEGREES rendered
or to be rendered In any Circuit Court any
trict Court acting as Circuit Court any cases in
equity OF admiralty or maritime jurisdiction and Of
The purpose OF the act of 1903 was to change the
mode OF removing the cases therein named from
the Circuit Courts to this Court 1t IS inferred
that the intention oil Congress in enactlng the
statutes was to exercise Its constitutional
touching the appellate Jurisdiction OF this Court
and to nix the same as far as relates
affirmative description by Congress OF the appellate
powers OF this Court mus; be understood as regu-
latlon under the constitution prohibiting the ex-
this court has no general appellate revising
power over the proceedings ana judgments OF the
Circuit Courts in criminal cases Is submitted as
proposition that admits Of no doubt, and the United
states VS.. More q Crouch, l72l Unlled states vs..
La Vengeance g Doll. 2s7. United STATES
HUDSON et al. Il Crouch 80, are cited as aunori
ties. An extended examination or the cases relied
upon sustain this then made and it is said
rh-t this Court has used tue whit OF haoeas
corpus to discharge prisoner In custody under a
bench warrant Issued upon an Indictment Tor crime
found by grand Jury III Circuit Court OF tile
United States.
1t is submitted that the power to do this has
cases that have been before 1t. On the con-
trary 1t IS said the reasoning OF the Cher Justice
IN &c pdrte WatKins-a case from the Circuit Court
OF the District or Columpla-on which the prisoner
was detained BY virtue OF a judgment rendered In o
criminal prosecution and the authorities cited to
support IT, apply with equal force to this case. In
that the Court held tnat the Circuit Courts are
final Judges OF their own jurisdiction, and OF all
their proceedings In criminal cases, and for this
reason declined TO look into the indictments
TO ascertain whether or not they charged offences
wiunin the Jurisdiction OF the Circuit Court II.
then this Court cannot by naDeas corpus discha roe
q prisoner under criminal sentence In Circuit
Court, even though 1t NAV appear that the Court
without JurlSdcuOn 1t cannot Interfere by that
writ prevent the trial OF prisoner held under an
indictment pending IN a Circuit Court. TO do 80
would be to accomplish indirectly that which the
Court Ia forbidden TO do directly.
The Court may, perhaps, inquire into the cause OF
in this case, that the party IS committed under an
Indictment Tor crime returned by Grand Jury IN a
Court OF general and nal jurisdiction tnat VIII be
ned sufficient cause. The Habeas Corpus act OF
81 Charles H. excerpts from the benefits or the
persons committed tor felony treason plainly
expressed In the warrant, as well persons con-
viced or In execution The Indictment In TINS case
is Tor an offence which Is expressly declared by the
act OF Congress to be- felony.
The counsel for the prisoner maintained that tn
fourteenth section OF the Judiciary act authorizes
TINS Court 10 exercise special appellate and correc
tive jurisdiction In Sucn cases OF habeas corpus,
with the writ OF CeftiOrarl as adjunct ap-
pelate power, and tnat this power has been SO
regarded as res ddjudtcato. The same question as
TO the constiutlonality OF the enforcement act Is
involved was presented but nOs heard In the re-
recently dismissed ku Kux cases, and as the ar
guncnt made la the briefs In those cases was then
fully gwen II Is not necessary now TO repeat 1t In
detail, but the main points are as iolows:-
me counsel for the prisoner contend that the
exercise OF the power on the Dart OF the United
States protect the right oil suffrage In the coureu
citizen when Is granted by the recent amend
ments carries with 1t no power TO interfere in any
way with the authority oil the stale over the ques
ton OF suffrage not even with the power to uis-
criminate by property qualification and conse-
auently Congress was without authority to pass TINS
act. TIE government insists that the condl
tion OF the country rendered the leylsa.
r'en, OF snrc in The eolored e,tiSen and the end
oelng legitimate and WITHIN the scope OF the con.
sulution, all means when are appropriate ana
plainly adapted to that end. and not prohibited, are
constitutional IL Is also said that the legislation Is
within the rghtfnl authority OF Congress, under
the clause obgating the United States 10 guarantee
TO every state a republican form OF governments
masmuch as II the majority or dominant race In a
state should deprive the cnfrancnised ireemen OF
the right 90 vote ana should subject them 10 the
deprivation OF ali civil rights, the government OF
sucn state could longer be said To be repuDll.
can IN form or substance.
il is also contender for the prisoner that these
amendments SHOULD be held TO apply to states Only,
preventing them IRON passing laws which shall
aDrdge The rights oil the coored citizen, and that
they 40 not apply 10 the individuals OF state. To
this the government responds that the amendments
apply Doth 10 the people OF the state ana the state
ITSELF and that Congress hos power 10 enforce them
by penal legislation 10 be administered In the led
erai Courts. ana IL ~ said That the enforcement
the PROVISIONS OF the amendment against the peo-
pie OF the states directly Is lar more conservative
and less interference WIN the sovereignty oil the
states tuan any coercion OF the state government
would be.
Soncltor General BrsIow. who opened on behalf
OF The United states, was followed by Nh StanLery
for the prisoner and Vas succeeded by the Attorney
General. Reyerdy Johnson VIII conclude tne argu.
meat on Monday.