New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-16


operative by increasing The facilitIes tor pcning 1t;
charging he class of officers having jurisdiction in
respect OF ii; imposing penalties fer refusal to giant II
10 obey IT, and prov din, for speedy return AMI
prompt trial and discharge OF he person. II rot held ac-
corg 10 the law Of the land q ~. C,n. 49,; er pnre
State did profess deal with regulate the con'on
law jurisdiction this writ which existed III the Sii-
10 the jurisdiction conferred by statute upon and cxtr,
ciscd ny iutciai officers ont OF courf: The Revised
Statu!e~ date The exercise OF this jurisdiction aS wen
by canris magistrates embracing not ONLY cases IN
vacation. bct In term tlnic. e K - III Edmcnis, Ed
Tnis vr cannot he abrora'cd It's efficacy curtailed
by iegisltye action, and cases within ne reei aiartSu
ny II ~ common law cannot until ire people Noiui,y
surrender iic right TO ts the greatest or al wfits ~
an anendnenl OF TIC os'pe law 9s pasa oe1g9 's
no, ne sNrn ~ a ~ resGI,1 or nvssipn. fons;ifa
ton. Art L. sec ~ The remedy against ILLEGAL bnpiis,
onincnl afforded by this writ ~ i was known md usod
at common law placed beyond the ao % legislative
lie safety requires H. In either of te two omerHnees
named IN tic Constitution THIS provision OK .ha t1n-
suoa transcript OF the former Constitution of the
state and Il cannot be intended that the tram.rs
Of the Revised tucs ~ which IN, practice Of he
eo,lrts In term time wa. placed under the rga-
tons that which had from the rst been prescribe Tor
time 10 tnt by statute, designed T. interfere with the
principles governing the exercise OF TIE Jnl.ac''9n of
Lessen the vare tae efficiency or the .iP9thee % s
writ itself which. in respect OF the jars e,iUn "i tac
supreme Court AMI Curt "I CAancciy, Mds N!o we
reach Of legislation Bringing me procedure al 'rni
tnie well IN vacation, within me saulc Siii'lI
rifles, all doubt thrt the intent was iha eyey
court ana oniseF having power To- gran. MflC "a oea
corpus AMI pass upon the legality Of m imprisonment
has and my exercise, in the form prescribed by NV al,
Kings IN In and and The supreme Court OF this
State a. tho corresponding tribunal with Us: ..,
There occ,son 70 DO alarmed or To he fnehencl
ont OF prOprcty lost by reason OF tao na.nbr 81
uittcd tho Judgment of superior courts viii be multiplied
and judicial pgoceC iugs rendered nugatoy. so tar rs
i,ed in many inferior massirlcs for more tln iDtte-
fourth4 OF a century The laws and indictments OF courts
have been executed without unSccmy interruption ny
means this writ OF liberty, and although tli.' :"
century since, distn Fshci EXecuiN. OF lnS s,aas
called the attention o. tine Legislature 10 the very danger
to con- t te iIri.Iiction of this wit he Legislature
fered the statute to remain IN snat iniin, y
LARGEST protection. g HI, Go, Notes) II il no news
feature III tae law that inferior lngis'ialr, may
ton OF the highest courts wien their process OF Judg
morts como coa.cally before them Tfesiass VIII nc Tor
property seized Tor the imrisonmento Of person ny
yirc OF the ind incnt the NJ hest court OF the state
if ii hls not jurisdiction Of the person. o. IL give me
judgment and justice OF the leare nS' pass "ia te
jurisdiction If the action chances 10 he ocioIe n Tor
trial. matters not what ne general powers aha lniis-
dction OF court may be II IL act without authority W
tie pariicuar its Judgments aud orders axe mere
utilities, not voidahie BAT Simply vod' P"ecIns no 0,c
acting under tlcin ana consftltln< no hh. f,lr1 ~ e
prosecution OF any right tsiiOtt aSt' flcisah re-
NE distinction between courts Of limited and Of gcn
eral jurisdiction is this, that when their acts ana jcg
ING defense ne latter il pre- s,ired while taa Of for
nitr must bc proved. BAT tue presumption III 1aNor o
of fac and not conclusive. II may BE- rcbatted II IL
depends upon tue existence of certain facts ana INC
court has passed upon these facts, he determination IS
conclusive until IT. Judgment has been reVCl ell or sct
aside, and this rule is as applicable 10 tine lnd kntns o.
C,mstoch IL Cnemuug Canal Blnk at Juason, 4 he
den, 254D.
/ TIE WRIT TO RECEIVE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION.
There is nothing startling in the application of these
well locognlzed principles to proceedings by the writ OF
habeas corpus in favor of the citizen restrained OF his
| liberty undGr color OF judicial proceedings absolutely
void Neither should the abCas corpus ac Which judges
have regored as the buwari Of the Constitution the
ana IL glory 10y subtle ami metaphysical iHterprcs
ton. Itcr should it receive liberal construction ~
need b.. OF the technical lirsuage used. Tins act
his a"as been c1iistfded ~ ,r0 u , any iti no'
and reading Of IL must De the sne En'ier the hsn
cit OF it invoked by The prrt ANA best citizen OF TIE
condi punishment The law il resPcetr Of persons
ny,I of His lh@ry cxcepf "hy due process Of law;
and tic wllt U habeIs corpus available even 10 the
a. Il Ina. roycd ag.inst comitmeAt- by tno king IN
council But the act needs no interpretations ana = III
both in ts State and IN England, ana Win the Colsi'H
Persons committed or detained by virtue of the final
Judgment Or dreree OF any tribunal OF clv OF
issued upon ind sment decree expressly
Guided from tie benefit OF lie ac e L. - 10J Sec. -
party is detained IN custody by virtue Of suc judgment
decree any execution isGed thereon, he must be
pr, cd their liberty "hy due process Of law and are
not within the purview Of the Constitution or the pii
poses OF the writ To bar the applicant rom discharge
from arrest by virtue ~ Judgment or decree, or an exc
eulicn thereon, the coar! N Which tc Jgdsmen or IT,
Judgment The tribunal must be competent to
The prohibition OF the la Section OF the Habeas Corpus
act. orbidding the inquiry by the Court or officers mo
the LEGALITY of any previous Judgment decree, excel
tiOn, specified in the I'D Section docs not and cannot
without nnlifyine in gooa measure. the lr"ysons Of
that and other sections of the act take from the court or
officer the power, relieve him from tie duty OF deier-
mining whether The process, Judgment deere or eXeTn-
ton, enanated from eontt OF conipeteht J1ilsdi'
| ton and whether The court, making the Judgment
constitutional power to give such Judgment, or send
iortl suea process Ii simply prohibits tbe review
diction. # the record shows that he judgment
is merely brit such could not under cF
So OF rai 0n not Within the eHcopon q" the
statute and the applicant mnst I've discharged II the
wrG d men, when lad inriS,icicn tic party
agioyed only have relief by writ OF erIor or Other
habeas corpus The Inquiry is necessarily in every case
whether the process void, and the officer Court hav
cess, good in form issued upon Judgment of Court
having jurisdiction, either general or limited must in all
Oe assumed To Do valid until the Jn igncut be re-
voIsed upon error the remedy by writ OF La5cas corpus
The distinction between Judgments void and those
and therefore yo.dable Is reeo-led IN al Tie
who delivered opinions in the celebrated case OF john v
y Yates III It's various phases ana Stages as "a
the doctrine although they differed widely IN their uis-
ments in that particular case; but Their differences as
well the ultimate decision of the matter, turned upon
the peculiar circumstances OF the and do not BEAR
except very remotely upon the question now under con-
sideration. Mr. Hin, in his valuable note TO the Mcleod
case e Ill., Gf7 has carefully and with his usual acc
racy epomzed the law relating TO the writ OF habeas
corpus, and pointed out the departures uncr the stat
utes OF State from the common law and the PROPOSE
tons enmciaCd by him well sustained by the au-
tholities cited in the note and far applicable ~ lie
case in hand may be briefly summed up.
TIE LAW OF HABEAs CORPUS ErIToNIzED.
As well at common law under the statutes OF This
State if the party detained process the existence