Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1897-01-02

re Heath, 144 U. S. 92; Gross v. Burk,
146 U. =. SO.
On the same third of March, A. d. 1888!
congress passed an act "regulsting ar
peals from the supreme court of the Dis
trict of Columbia and the supreme court
of the several territories" (23 Stat. "A;
G. 1861 The first section of this act pre-
vided "that no appeal or writ of erro
shall hereafter be allowed from any judg
ment or decree in any suit at law or i
equity in the supreme court of the Dis
trict of Columbia, or in the suprem
court of any of the territories of th
United States, unless the matter in dis
pute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed tn
sum of five thousand dollars;" and tn
second section, that the first sectio
should not apply to any case "wherein i
involved the validity of any patent o
copyright, or IN which is drawn in ques
tion the validity of a treaty or statute O
or an authority exercised under tn
United States; but in all such cases an ap
peal or writ of error may be brough
without regard to the sum or value in dis
pute." We have repeatedly decided tina
this act did not apply, IN either section
to any criminal case, and that it was onl,
applicable to judgments and DEGREES ir
suits at law or in equity in which ther,
was a pecuniary matter in dispate
Hence, that, as it was we'll settled that
proceeding in habeas corpus was civi
and not criminal proceeding, and was
only availed of to assert the civil right oil
personal liberty, the matter in dispute
had no money value, and an appeal
would not lie. Gross v. Burke, LAG U. S
80; Farnsworth v. Montana, l29 U. s. l04
United States v. Sanges, IA U. s. 500
Washington &c. R. Co. v. District; LAG U
8. 227; In re Lennon, $50 U. s. 395, 397
In re Chapman, Petitioner, 1856 U. s. 2l1
2l5; In re Bell, Petitioner, l59 U. :. 95
100; Chapman v. United States, 16i u. s.
=; Perrine v. Slack, 164 u s..
The supreme court of New Mexico de-
clined to allow an appeal in this case be-
cause of the rule laid down in Gross v.
Burke and in In re Lennon, supra, and it
may be admitted that the view that an
appeal would not lie might well have
been entertained. But We think that the
legislation in respect of the review of the
final orders of the territorial supreme
courts on habeas corpus 30 far differs
from that in respect of the Judgment of
the courts of the District of Columbia
that different rule applies.
1t will be perceived that the revision of
the final judgments or decraes of the su-
preme court of the district depended on
the provision that they should be so re-
examinable in the same cases and in like
manner as the final judgments of the cir.
cult court of the United States, and that
there was no special provision in relation
to the review of final orders of such
courts on habeas corpus.
Sections 7O2 and 1909 of the Revised
Statutes are as follows:
"SEo. 702. The final judgments and
DEGREES of the supreme court of any terri
tory, except the territory of Washington,
in cases where the value of the matter in
dispute, exclusive of costs, to be ascer.
tained by the oath of either party, or of
other competent witnesses, exceeds one
thousand dollars, may be reviewed and
reversed or affirmed in the supreme court,
upon writ of error or appeal in the same
manner and under the same regulations
as the final judgments and DEGREES of a
circuit court.
''SEC. 1903. Writs of error and ap-
peals from the final decisions of the su.
preme court of either of tue territories of
New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Dakota,
Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming,
shall be allowed to the supreme court of
the United States, in the same manner
and under the same regulations as from
the circuit court of the United States,
where the value of the property or
the amount in controversy, to be
ascertained by the oath of either
party, or of other competent witnesses,
exceeds one thousand dollars, except that
writ of error or appeal shall be allowed
to the supreme court of the United States
from the decision of the supreme courts
created by this title, or of any Judge
thereof, or of the district courts created
by this title, or of any judge thereof,
upon writs of habeas corpus involving
the question of personal freedom"
This section was one of those under
title %, 'The Territories" and the excep.
tion was brought forward from section 10
of the organic law of New Mexico, ap
proved September 8, 1850. 8 Stat 446,
449, C. 40.
As to the supreme court of the District
of Columb bia, its final judgments, orders,
and DEGREES were renewable by this court
on writ of error or appeal by section 7o5
of the Revised Statutes, and section SAG
of the Revised Statutes of the district, in
the same cases and in like manner as pro-
viaed by law in reference to the final
judgments, orders anu DEGREES of the cir
cult courts of the United States, and
there was no mention of final orders
on habeas corpus; but as to the
supreme courts of the territories.
the right of appeal in habeas
corpus was given in addition by
the special provision of section 1909 of
the Revised Statutes. When the Revised
Statutes and the Revised Statutes of the
district we're approved, both on the same
day, June 20, 1874, appeals could not be
taken from the decisions of circuit courts
on habeas corpus except in the instance
of the subjects or citizens of foreign
states; and thu act of March 3, 1885,
(c. $685. restoring the appellate jurisdic.
tion of this court in respect of final de-
cisions of the circuit courts on habeas
corpus in cases of persons alleged to be
restrained of their liberty in violation of
the constitution or any law or treaty of
the United States, did not operate to
give the same right of appeal to the
courts of the District of Columbia. And
then the second act of March 8, 1885,
70. 355,) came In to furnish the exclusive
rule as to appeals and writs of error to
review the final judgments and DEGREES