Year: 1863

Importaut Decision i'm the. Supreme


Court of New York.


From the New York Express.


The celebrated case of George W Jones, late
Senator from Iowa, VS. Wm. b. Seward, was
decided this morning by Justice Clerke, Of the
Supreme Court


ut was an action for damages for alleged false
Imprisonment. The defendant applied for an
order of this court to remove the action proceed
ing therein to the next Circuit Court of the United
States. to be held in and for the Southern District
of the State of New York.


"The defendant stated IN his petition for this
order that the action was brought for acts alleged
to have been done by him Secretary of State
for the United States of America, under authori-
" derived w him from the President Of the
United States. in causing the plaintiff to be ar
rested and imprisoned, for some other wrong
alleged to have been done to the plaintiff under
such authority during the present rebellion, and
that il therefore within the act of Congress
of March Sd. 1863, relating to the writ of habeas
corpus bv which case may be removed 10 an
other Court


1.-THE question to be determined being whether
the President Of the United States during a re-
belliC can arrest any person not subject to mill
tary law, without the process of some court, this
was a question that would arise under the Consti-
tuition of the United States.


at cannot of course be pretended by the most
ardent advocate Of this high Presidential preroga-
tive that the Constitution confers it in set terms.
There is nothing in that instrument that can be
tortured into the comforting of such power upon
the President in his civil capacity; and this it
appears to me, plainly disposcs of the question,
for it would be asserting the greatest contradic-
tion and the strangest anamoly to say that abso-
lutte and unlimited power equal to any exercised
by Gar or Sultan, can be implied by Constitu-
ton which gives no power to any department that
is not specifically set forth, except simply the
consequent right to employ all legal means ne
cessary to the execution Of the power.


eff there is anything beyond all controversy in
the constitutional history of the nation, il is that
the purpose of the Constitution and the provi-
siOns which il contains, were for a considerable
time before its adoption, thoroughly discussed by
the people and their delegates in convention, and
any man protesting to cnnier unlimited power on
any department of the Government, on any pre-
text, would not have been deemed sane"


After referring to the constitutional history Of
United States and England, the learned Judge
remarks:


Gould it be supposed that the trainers of the
Constitution intended any such power as that
claimed in the present case, either expressed or
implied? If they intended dictatorship TO exist
under any emergency, they would not leaveit to
the Chief Executive to assume il when he may
in his discretion declare necessity required il, but
would have provided that this necessity should be
declared by Congress, and that the Legislative
power alone should select the person who should
exercise it, That the President can assume
such power is an extravagant assumption which
cannot be. entertained by any court No such
inquiry can arise under the Constitution of the
United States. Ii does not reach the proportions
or stature ofa question.


''Mr. Lincoln a military commander can
possess no greater power than if he were not
President Suppose the Constitution vested the
command in chief of the army and navy 10 some
person other than the President. could this func-
tionary suBvert the Constitution and Laws under
the plea of military necessity Surely not"


The learned Judge thus concludes:


"The power for which the defendant contends
is plainly not necessary for the safety of the
ton, and is not conferred bv the Constitution.
When that safety shall be endangered within the
immediate theater of insurrection war, the
Commander-in chief and his subordinates are
judges of the occasion: but beyond that the or
binary course of proceeding in the Courts of JUS
tice will be sufficient to punish any persons who
furnish information, afford aid to enemy, or
betray their country. In case of emergency,
caused by invasion or insurrection, the powers
expressly given by the Constitution and the acts
of Congress TO repel the one and suppress the
osher ample aud effective. IL requires no
exercise of extraordinary power the
sacred rights of personal liberty TO accomplish
this Ii is manifest that it is beyond all cOntro-
versy that those rights. in or in peace. during
invasion domestic violence, even during the
hideous rebellion which now confronts US. exist
in the which / have stated, and are in
vioable.


"The President, therefore, whether in his civil
or military capacity as Commander-in chief, has
no such power as that claimed for him.


"The ground upon which the application is
made has no foundation in right. Ii cannot be
entertained question in any State or in the
United States Courts. The only question in this
motion worthy of consideration. and which can
be entertained. does not arise under the CoRsti-
tuition of the United States. but is clearly within
the jurisdiction of this Court. The motion is
denied with costs"