Richmond planet., 1904-08-13
The Fourteenth Amendment. A
Colored Man Released.
THE GREAT WRIT OF RIGHT MUST BE TRIED
BY JURY-WAS NOT DUE PROCESS OF T AW
A REMARKABLE PHILLIPIC
HENRY JAMESON DISCHARGED.
A Federal Courts Decree Respected.


place In the jurisdiction and procedure
OF police courts where trial by iury is
not right of the accused. How abhor.
rent would be such a punishment in
such cases to those great American in
rlsts whose finding is ultimate deterini.
| nation, we may Judge from Callan VS.
| wilson, 12I u. S $40. In denouncinp a
conviction in police court of the Dis
| trlct OF o'umbia, Justice Harlan said
Inc jurisdiction of the police court as
defined by existing statute does not ex
tend to the trial of infamous crimes. or
| otfenses punishable by Imprisonment i'm
the penltentiary." And this for the
reason that there was no provision for
jury trial.
THE DEFENDANTS CONTENTION,
FINALLY 1t is urged that a court of the
| United States may not, by judgment
upon habeas corpus, afford relief 60 the
citizen who is deprived of his liberty
even by a colorado order from a police
court OF the state, and though the court
Is without jurisdiction, its order void
and Its sentence to infamous punish
ment so severe that if the petitioner can
survive, 1t will probably ex-
| haust the last resources of nature This
contention does not seem marked by
any considerable merit. So valuable
Is deemed this great remedy, that the
Oonstltutionsitself provides that The
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
snail not be suspended, unless when i'm
case OF rebellion or invasion the public
safety may require it," Sections 75I
152 and 153 of the Rev. Stat. provide
that the Supreme Court, circuit and
district courts, the several justices and
Judges of said courts within their respec
i've Jurisdictions shall have power to
grant wrlts of habeas corpus for the
purpose OF an inquiry into the cause of
| restraint of liberty. 1t is true that il is
provided that the writ shall not extend
to prisoner who is in custody bv a
state court, unless that custody is i'm
violation OF the Constitution, or of a
La " or treaty of the United States.
MR.. JUSTICE HARLAN's OPINION.
This topic is thoroughly discussed in
the opinion of MIR. Justice Harlan, Tor
the unanimous court, in Exparte Royal
III U. :. 245. From this decision
which has never been departed from
the law is clearly deducible that the
&C urts and judicial officers of the Uni
TED States named in the habeas corpus
enactments, shall not have power To a.
ward the writ 60 any prisoner in iail. or
we may add, in confinement. by consti-
tuted authorities, except in the speci-
ned cases, and most important of these
is where he is alleged TO be held in cus
tody In violation of the Constitution of
the United States. Gases of this latter
class are expressly provided for by the
act or Congress of February 3 1857
chap. 2S, IA Stat. L. 3S5. This declares
that the several courts of the United
States and the several justices and
Judges thereof within their respective
Jurisdictions, in addition to the author
1ty they have conferred by law. shall
nave power 20 grant writs OF habeas
corpus IN all cases where any person
may be restrained of his or her liberty
IN violation of the Constitution or of
any treaty or law of the United States
The power therefore in the court to
grant the writ, by statute and authori
ty Is complete.
GREAT DISCRETION TO BE EXERCISED
lt is true that it has been held i'm ex-
parte Roya., and in many other cases
that the United States Court. having
dlscretlon to grant the writ, that discre.
tion should be exercised in the light of
the relations existing under our system
OF government between the judicial tri-
DunaIs OF the Union and of the States.
III mas been further held that the discre
ton should be subordinated to the snac-
Ial circumstances in each case. and that
Where the state court has jurisdiction
the writ should generally not be grant
ed unless the necessity is urgent In
view OF these settled principles, in a
multitude of cases, the supreme court
and the other United States courts have
refused to award the writ. But as in
tne hoyaI case, it was always held that
IL the proceeding against the prisoner
was repugnant to the Constitution, the
prosecution against him had nothing
upon which to rest and the entire proe
ceedlng was anullity. 1t was said in ex-
parte Siebold, 100 u. S. 37l.376, that an
unconstitutional law is void, and is as
no law, conviction under it is not
merely erroneous but is illegal and void
and cannot be legal case of imprison-
ment.