The Washington times., 1903-06-03
LACK JURISDICTION
IN ISLAND OF GUAM
Court of Appeals Opinion in Habeas
Corpus Case.

The Court of Appeals for the District,
in an opinion announced yesterday BY
Mr.. Justice Shepard. says the jurisdic-
ton of the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict does not extend 20 persons restrain
ed OF their liberty In distant possessions
Of the United States, IS the Island Of
Guam. simply because the head OF the
Governmental department, under the au-
thority OF which the person was M
prisofed, is resident OF the District.
The question was raised in the case OF
Edward Johnson, a marine, who was
convicted OF larceny In the civil court
In the Island Of Guam and sentenced TO
imprisonment in jail for a period of six
years
Johnson. through his attorneys, Da-
vidge and Mackey, filed petition for .
writ OF habeas corpus to secure his re-
lease from custody. The application FOR
the writ was denied by Edward F. Biug-
ham, then chief justice of the District
Supreme Court.
1t was contended that the court which
declared Johnson guilty was Illegally
constituted, and also that the punish
ment imposed was in violation OF the
rules and regulations of the Navy De-
partment, which fixed the penalty for
such offenses at Imprisonment for two
years. In disposing of the question In
yolved, Mr.. Justice Shepard said:
The question is raised: Does the
jurisdiction OF the Supreme Court OF the
District of Columbia extend to the case
of any person unlawfuIiy restrained OF
his liberty in distant possession OF the
United States by or under the authority
OF an officer of the navy acting as gov
ernor thereof. because the Secretary Of
the Navy, in the discharge of his official
duties as the head of that department.
maintains his residence in the District
Of Columbia?
In other words-to give the question
Its necessary scope-has that court ju-
rfsdiction of any and all persons who. 1t
may be alleged, are unlawfully restrain
ed OF their liberty by officers of the
army or navy in any State, Territory, or
outlying possession of the United States,
merely because the respective heads of
the Navy and War Departments of the
Government may be found and person
ally served with process within the Dis
trict of Columbia?
We are compelled to give a mega
tive answer to the question, notwith-
standing II may possibly be that the
party on whose behalf the petition is
presented is restrained of his liberty
under the order of tribunal unknown
RI he IONS
out certain remedy in any other court
Jurisdiction TO issue the writ on his
behalf then depends upon the single cir
cumstance that the Secretary of the
Navy is alleged TO have the final control
over his Imprisonment. IT Is to this
broad claim OF Jurisdiction that we deny
our assent.
But. II the jurisdiction of the court
were maintainable on the ground claim
ed, the judgment would nevertheless
have to be affirmed The prisoner is
not in the actual custody of the Secre-
tary. The allegation that he is restrain
ed by the agents and subordinates of the
Secretary, and is within his control
through the custody of a person I'M
known, who exercises his authority IN
der the orders of the Secretary, is
conclusion OF law. We must take judi
cial notice OF the powers and duties OF
the Secretary under the Constitution and
laws. The officers of the navy are not
his agents. They, like the Secretary
himself, are the agents and representa-
tives of the President of the United
States. who is the commander-in-chief
OF the army and navy. The officers in
command of the Island OF Guam are
subject to his orders. Any authority
which the Secretary may exercise over
them is solely as the representative OF
the President. IN his name, and as the
organ of his will.
The power TO relieve the prisoner or
to produce him IN obedience to the writ
is in the President, and not in the Sec
rotary OF the Navy. The Judgment must
be affirmed. and 1t is so ordered
District Attorney Beach and Assistant
Attorney Jesse Adkins presented the
case on behalf of the Secretary OF the
NAVY