The Evening critic., 1882-03-24
MAS0N'S CASE.
LEAVE TO FILE THE PAPERS ASKED


i'm Full.
Mcesrs. James NJ. W. Lyddy appeared
before the United States Supreme Court to-day
on behalf OF Sergeant Mason, and shortly after
the Court convened the former arose and said
IF your Honors please, appear, with my
brt thcr, Mr.. William NJ. Lyddy, as counsel, 70
apply for leave to ille the petition OF Sergeant
John A. Mnson, brief OF our own, and sup
Elemental brief for writ of habcas corpus
and certiorari. In order to facilitate business
] herewith hand TO tho court printed copies OF
all the papers bearing ON the ;,, case: e., ,o mn.
Ter under consider tion and VIII ondeavor to
give you an answer ON Monday whether we
Will grant you leave 20 nle or not"
nctiiion and other papers published in THE
CRITIC yesterday, included, first, the follow
ing brief
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
IN he Nattor or he Petition of John
Anderson Mds01, for lVri,s Of Hd5eaS
Coipus and Cttiofdrt, dc.
BRIEF AND POINTS OF PETITIONER.
This is an application for leave to file the
sentence of imprisonment, with hard labor,
for the period of eight years, imposed by
military court-martial, held recently In the
city Of Washington. D. O., on the 10th day OF
March, 1882 and for an order to show cause
why the writs prayed for should not issue.
The motion for leave TO file the petition, and
for the order to show cause should be granted.
POINTS.
Ft7gt-The United States Supreme Court has
full power to issue the writ of habeas corpus
without any qualifications or limitations what
ever
Section 751. OF the Revised Statutes, pro-
vides: .That the Supreme Court and the Cir
cult and District Courts, shall have power to
Issue writs OF habcas corpus" (See section
T51 r. s., and cases cited.l
Section 752 provides that: 'The several
Justices and judges of the said courts, within
their respective jurisdictions, shall have
power to grant writs OF habeas corpus for the
purpose Of any inquiry into the cause of per-
These two sections (751 and 752) clearly
show that for any cause where the personal
liberty OF the citizen Is restrained by any trf-
bunal, court or process, the writ OF habeas
corpus shall be allowed by the court for the
ran aIy r. asS sscon ioe 7o OF
The writ is not allowed for the purpose Of re-
| viewing the proceedings of the court-martial,
but for the purpose of an inquiry into the
| cause Of the prisoners detention, and II he is
restrained OF his liberty, in violation of the
| Constitution and the statutes III such cases,
under an illegal and unauthorized process OF
commitment, emanating from tribunal that
had no jurisdiction to try, to convict, to SEN
| tence, and to commit the prisoner, then the
petitioner must be set at liberty, and the mo-
tion for leave to file the petition for the writ
and for the order to show cause why the wrlts
should not Issue should be granted.
| Secon6-The writ of habeas may issue to in
quire into the cause of detention and imprls-
onment of party condemned unlawfully by
| military court-martial. See Wilson VS.. Nc
KinZe, cited in ex parte. Milligan, Wallace.
p. az. Also, ex parte Milligan, Wall, PIP. 2
|
In this case last above-cited, the power of
the Supreme Court to issue the writ OF habeas
corpus TO inquire into the cause of the deten-
tion of the prisoner convicted by military
| court-martfal without Jurisdiction was de-
| cided by this court (Judge Davis) rendering
the opinion of the circuit, and Judge Wayne,
| Judge Swayno and Judge Miller concurring.
| Again, the Supreme Court has power to issue
the writ Of habeas corpus, where the court,
| martial either exceeded its jurisdiction or had
| no jurisdiction whatever.
In the case of Dynes VS.. Hoover, 90 Howard,
| p. 50, the court says:
| "If a court-martial has no Jurisdiction over
the subject matter Of the charge 1t has been
convened to try, or shall iniict a punishment
forbidden by the law, even though its sentence
visory power OF 1t, civil courts may, on an
action, or proceeding by a party aggrieved by
dfction, and give him redress" Also cited in
ex parte Milligan, Wallace, p. 40.
Wud.Ihe military court-martial had no
jurisdictions to try Sergeant Mason for San
assault with intent.to KILL"
This was the offense charged against Mason,
and which II was claimed was violation OF
But article 90 must be construed with ar
ticles 5S and 80, SO as to give effect to all, II
Article 5S covers and includes the ofrenst
charged against Mason-assauit with tnten
martial only In time of war.
Article SO covers the charge against Masor
in time OF peace, and provides for trial by
the civil authorities, and that the military
authorities shall surrender the accused on de
mand by the civil authorities.
Article 60 is an omnibus clause, intended tt
provide for all other offenses not provided for
and not enumerated in Articles SO and SO
But ''an assault with intent to kill" Is specific
ally recited and provided for In article 5S 81
that article 62, under which Mason was tried
convicted and sentenced, has no application
TO his case, and the military court-martial
therefore, had no Jurisdiction.
| FtU1th-Article VI of the Constitution pro
vides that all persons accused of crimes shall
be entitled to a trial by jury. This was dc
l nj fa1 "A plI1r rf.flor tial md M
Jurisdiction TO try him.
E1tW-Tho sentence of the court-martia
(see Exhibit No. ~ is that he be discharged
from the Army, and then ION being dis
charged, but not before) that he undergo i'm
prisonment for eight years in addition.
When Mason was discharged by the milltar.
authorities from the Army by the court-mar
tial, all jurisdiction OF his person was lost b.
the military authorities, and their power t
at an end. The imprisonment therefore
utterly void and illegal.
SiaH-It' Is true that the Circuit Court ma
have the power to Issue this writ; but tht
Court also has The power In the first instance
as court Of both original as well as appellat
| Jurisdiction. 1t has exercised that power be
| fore in the Milligan lcourt-martiaD case.
i Wallace. p. ?, and In the Lang case reporte
in the 1S Wallace, 163, where 1t Issued tn
. writs, not for the purpose OF reviewing tn
courts below, but as an original question, an
subject to inquire into the cause OF the re
| siraint on the liberty OF the subject. The cas-
| before the Court is one of great national In
portance; the question OF the personal libert
OF the citizen Is OF paramount Importance, an
rises superior TO all other considerations.
Q To use the eloquent and patriotic words o
r Mr.. Justice Miller, in the Lange case, 1S Wall
0 p. IT'S:
a "There is no more sacred duty of corr
[ than in a case properly before II to maintai
). unimpaired those securities for the persona
. rights OF the Individual which have receive
T. for ages the sanction OF the turist and III
o statesman, and in such cases no narrow
|. Illegal construction should be given TO IL
: words OF the ornamental law In which the
are embodied"
/, In such a case as ia now presented to Il
Court, where IL is claimed the military n
y thorities never had any Jurisdiction al
Q where the sentence and imprisonment OF tt
, petitioner is utterly void, the motion 10 III
u the petition and for an order 10 show caui
|, should be granted.
: JAMES NJ. LYDDY,
Counsel for Petitioner.
LYDDY BROTHERS.
Attorneys for Petitioner,
II 3lS Broadway, New York City.
Is The following was tho
s. SUPPLEMENTAL POINT.
II And lastly, the proceedings OF the cOul
o martial are on file with the Judge-Advocai
g General within the city OF Washington al
3 District OF Columbia, while tho petitioner
l. within the Northern District OF New Yor