Richmond planet., 1904-08-20
The Fourteenth Amendment, A
COlored Man Released.
THE GREAT WRIT OF RIGHT MUST BE TRIED
BY A JURY-WAS NOTDUE PROCESS OFLAW
A REMARKABLE PHIILIPIC
HENRY JAMESON DISCHARGED
A Federal Courts Decree Respected.
CcoNT1NUED FROM LAST WEEK.

Adverting to the argument which
was made here that where a defendant
has been regularly tried and convicted
in state court, his only remedy was to
carry the judgment to the state court of
last resort and hence by writ of error TO
the supreme court.
Mr.. JUSTICE BRADLEY'S OPINION.
Mr.. Justice Bradley, in exparte
Iange, lS Will 1863, declared:
This might be so if the proceeding
IN the stsste -Ss-rs = Gs-rr.erely erroneous
ut where at : void for want of juris-
lction, he sas corpus will lie
aRd may b. issued by any court
or judge inves 4 with supervisory jur-
isdiction in such case"
The wealth of authority upon this
subject is very great. 1t is believed
that every pertinent case has been ex-
smined, and while in rare cases, decis-
ions of the circuit or district courts
have been reversed by the supreme
court. for error in the determination of
the cause itself, no case has been found
wherein there is disapproval of the
action of such courts for awarding the
writ of habeas corpus, where it is fully
averred and shown that the petitioner
is held in custody i'll violation of the
Constitution and laws of the United
States. On the other hand there are
many precedentS where the decisions of
such courts have been affirmed for
granting the writ and discharging the
prisoner, under avermeuts that he has
been deprived of his liberty in violation
of those fundamental rights and i'm
munities secured TO him by the Consti-
tuition and laws of cur common country.
A case precisely in point is IN RE Mills,
1S5 q. 5. 1856. In that case the proper
punishment might have been "imprison-
ment," but a District Court of the Unit
ed States sentenced the prisoner TO i'm
prlsonment in the penitentiary.
No RIGHT TO PASS SUCH A SENTENCE.
Holding that such Imprisonment was
infamous, with OF without hard labor,
the supreme court held that the court
below was without jurisdiction to pass
any such sentence and the orders direct
ing sentence of Imprisonment to be exc
cuted were void A FoRTIoRI would
such Judgment from a police court be
annGlled. This, it was declared is not
a case or mere error, but one in which
the court below transcended its powers.
Citing Exparte Lange, Is Wall, 1863;
ExparJe Parks 80 U. ). IS; Exparte
Virginia. 100 U. S. 339-343; Exparte
Rowland, l04 u. S. GOA; IN RE Cox, l27
Y. ). 73l; IN RE Hans Nielsen, 13I
L. S. l76.
The aggressions of municipal corpo-
ratlons upon the rights and liberties of
the citizens, declared by competent OBJ
servers TO be at once the most vicious
feature OF our present social condition,
ana the most alarming portent of our
future, have thrust multitude of un-
constitutional ordinances before the
courts Of the United States. This has
occasloned much shrilling and no little
obJurations from the local interest from
time to time affected, but happily for
the people the courts steadily proceed
: With the exercise of their constitutional
powers. In Yick Wo. VS., Hopkins, lis
y >. S56. 1t was held that in a suit
brought before the supreme court from
state court which involved the consti-
tutlonalty OF ordinances made by muni
ClpaI corporations in the state, the
United States Court will, when necess
ary'put S own independent construction
opon such ordinances. The same ele
Waited tribunal remarks ID the same case
ITo BE CONTINUED