Court Opinion

ID: 9464177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:26:52.516168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:29.850155
License: Public Domain

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I join in the disposition of Trantino’s claims B (competency hearing) and C (medication use that impaired defense) I dissent from the disposition of claim D, which alleges:
[t]hat petitioner was denied the effective assistance of his own psychiatrists by the state’s failure to inform them of the psychoactive drugs he was taking .
See 480 F.Supp. at 480. The majority opinion states that this contention was not fairly presented to the state courts. I disagree.
I
In the Supreme Court of New Jersey, State v. Trantino, 60 N.J. 176, 287 A.2d 177 (1972), in an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, the brief on behalf of Trantino (Exhibit R-29) listed eight questions under the rubric “Statement of Questions Involved,” including:
8. Where the defendant is under the influence of tranquilizing drugs at the time he is interviewed by his own psychiatric expert, and the expert is not apprised of that fact, has the defendant been denied his right to a fair trial and due process of law?
In the “Statement of the Case” in the same brief Trantino urged:
H. The petitioner was denied his constitutional right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey in that he was deprived of his right to develop the basis for his defense, namely insanity, by virtue of the fact that he was under the influence of medication at the time he was examined by his expert psychiatric witness who was not apprised of that fact (D 517a), (as amended at the time of hearing (D 264a)).
The amendment referred to in the parenthetical appendix reference was to paragraph H of Trantino’s lower court Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, which, prior to being amended at the post-conviction relief hearing, alleged in part:
To require [Trantino’s] expert witnesses to come to the Bergen County Jail to interview the petitioner while he remained in a jail cell under constant sedation does not satisfy the due process requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment and the requirements of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and for a denial of fundamental justice, pursuant to R.R. 3:10A-4(b).
*99Exhibits R-34 at 155. The lower court allowed the amendment, which asserted an additional complaint, namely, that petitioner was under medication at the time he was examined by Dr. Kesselman, the defense psychiatrist, and that the medication was such as to reduce Trantino’s psychotic symptoms.1
In the argument portion of the brief to the Supreme Court of New Jersey Trantino argued:
“POINT H
APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN THAT THE MEDICATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE SAID AUTHORITIES REDUCED THE SYMPTOMS OF MENTAL ILLNESS AT THE TIME HE WAS EXAMINED BY HIS PSYCHIATRIST THEREBY DEPRIVING HIM OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF DEVELOPING THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY.

Statement of Facts

On December 1,1963, after taking Thorazine for approximately six weeks, Tran-tino was examined by Dr. Kesselman, a psychiatrist employed by the defense for the purpose of evaluating the mental condition of the defendant. The examination occurred in the cell which Trantino occupied. The resulting report of the psychiatrist was submitted in evidence as Exhibit D-5 (D264a-8). The report reveals that Dr. Kesselman was unaware of the medication then being administered Trantino. Dr. Zigarelli, the psychiatrist who examined Trantino for the State, testified that he, too, was unaware of these medications. Both Dr. Fink and Dr. Zigarelli stated it would be important for the examining psychiatrist to have knowledge of this course of treatment in order to make an accurate psychiatric evaluation (D326a-9; D326a-2). Thorazine will substantially reduce psychotic symptoms, resulting in a more normal appearance of a psychotic individual, even to a trained psychiatrist (D165a-20; D304a-24).

Argument

The appellant shall rely upon the arguments of law set forth in both Points A & B, supra, in support of this contention.”
The cross-reference to Point A of the brief is to Trantino’s legal argument in support of his contention that the Prosecutor, by making it impossible for Trantino to obtain certain information necessary for his defense, denied him “his constitutional prerogative not to be interfered with or unduly hampered by the State in his preparation of the defense.” Trantino Brief, Exhibit R-29 at 15. The cross-reference to Point B is to Trantino’s legal argument that, unknown to defense counsel, Trantino was on thorazine during his trial and thus unable to participate adequately in his defense. By applying the legal arguments in Points A and B to the factual allegations in Point H there can be no dispute that, in Point H, Trantino was asserting a constitutional violation based on the Prosecutor’s failure to inform defense counsel that Trantino was under medication at the time he was examined by the defense psychiatrist and that this lack of information deprived Trantino of his opportunity to develop the defense of insanity.1A
*100In its opinion the Supreme Court of New Jersey addresses both Point A and Point B at some length. 60 N.J. at 181, 287 A.2d 177. Point H, which is the same as habeas corpus point D, is not discussed specifically, but the court did rule on it, saying:
The remaining grounds for post-conviction relief set forth in defendant’s position are so unmeritorious as not to require specific mention.
60 N.J. at 182, 287 A.2d at 180.
It is no wonder, then, that the State, represented by its Attorney General in the federal habeas proceeding, “waived” its earlier contention that there had been no exhaustion of state remedies with respect to point D. The exhaustion contention is plainly inconsistent with the state court record in the post-conviction relief application.
The majority opinion suggests, without expressly stating, that the basis for its holding that claim D was not presented to the New Jersey Courts was the failure of Tran-tino’s state court brief to cite Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by name. Though Brady v. Maryland, is not cited, it cannot be disputed that Trantino called to the attention of the New Jersey courts the State’s knowledge of the medication and defense counsel’s lack of knowledge, and asserted that these facts constituted violations of due process and the sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Apparently the majority thinks little of the ability of the justices of the New Jersey Supreme Court to recognize, in the absence of a popularly known case citation, the federal law applicable to the facts alleged in Point H of Trantino’s post-conviction relief brief. Tacitly, the majority accuses the seven justices of being ignorant of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court on the duty of the State to make disclosures to defense counsel. In light of that tacit accusation there is a sharp, though perhaps unintended, flavor of irony in the parts of the majority opinion dealing with the tender regard we should have for the feelings of those judges. See at 95-99.
The claim that was presented to the Supreme Court of New Jersey is, as I read it, indistinguishable from claim D. Thus, in my view, there has been exhaustion of state remedies. And I predict that when Tranti-no returns to the state courts this is exactly what he will be told.
II
In support of its argument that the case should go back to the state courts the majority urges:
“that the record as it presently stands is not sufficient to resolve crucial elements of the Brady claim now advanced for the first time by petitioner.”
*101At. 98. The reference to “the first time” is, of course, a reiteration of the majority’s claim that the words in the quoted sections of Trantino’s brief in the Supreme Court of New Jersey did not mean what they plainly say. On that score I rest on Point I above. Turning to the alleged inadequacies of the record, I cannot help noting that seven justices of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the district court judge and I all agree that the record suffices for the decision of claim D. Thus, among judges who have examined that record in an appellate capacity, the head count on its adequacy is nine to two. The head count, of course, is not significant for the outcome, since a panel of this court is obliged to exercise an independent judgment. However, after exercising that independent judgment the panel is, or at least was, subject to statutory constraints with respect to disposition. When a claim has been presented to the state courts, as claim D clearly has been, if material facts were not adequately developed in the state court hearing, the remedy is not a dismissal of the habeas corpus petition, but a federal court habeas corpus evidentiary hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(3); Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 78, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 298, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969); Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 316, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963).
The States-Rights faction objected in Congress both to Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963) and to Townsend v. Sain, supra. Still, the standards for federal court factfinding announced in the latter were codified. By directing a dismissal of the petition rather than a remand for an evidentiary hearing the majority defies a deliberate Congressional choice. Conceding, as I must, that there has been encouragement from on high for the dismantling of this statutory scheme for enforcing the Supremacy Clause in the state criminal justice system,2 I do not share the majority’s enthusiasm for being out in front of the Supreme Court’s current majority in that effort. Even if I agreed that additional facts must be developed to decide claim D I would remand for findings in the district court as 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) directs. In this instance, the majority gives the State of New Jersey far more than it asked for, or is entitled to.
Ill
The State of New Jersey, represented by its Attorney General, was, and remains, perfectly willing to have this case decided in a federal forum now, for the obvious common sense reason that it must ultimately be resolved in a federal forum in any event. The State of New Jersey, through its Attorney General, litigated the case in the federal district court and in this court. Despite the fact that the case has been fully litigated, the majority holds that the carefully considered choice of the State of New Jersey, made by its highest law officer, not only does not bind that sovereign state, but must be rejected. No reference is made to any limitations upon the authority of the Attorney General under New Jersey law. Under that sovereign state’s law the Attorney General is a constitutional officer. N.J. Const. Art. V, § 4, H 3. As the head of the Division of Law he has the statutory duty to appear for all instrumentalities of state government in actions brought against them, and to “[ajttend generally to all matters in which the State or any officer, department, board, body, commission or instrumentality of the State Government is a party or in which its rights or interests are involved . . ..” N.J.S.A. 52:17A-4(g). Despite this clear expression of state law as to the Attorney General’s authority, the majority holds that he lacks authority to “waive” the separate interest of the state judges in having the first opportunity to pass on Trantino’s Brady claim. Certainly the state judiciary is an “instrumentality of *102the State Government.” Certainly the Attorney General has both the authority and the duty to speak for that instrumentality in a habeas corpus case if, in such a case, the “rights or interests” of that instrumentality are somehow separately involved. Certainly nothing in New Jersey law supports the novel proposition that the Attorney General lacks authority to speak in a habeas corpus case on behalf of the separate interests, if any, of the state judiciary. Obviously, then, the majority is announcing a rule of federal law with respect to the State Attorney General’s authority. The analysis which leads to the announcement of this federal law limitation on the authority of the State Attorney General is worth quoting:
The basis for rejection of the concept of waiver in this case — like that underlying rejection of concession in Zicarelli — is found in the policy underlying the exhaustion requirement. Exhaustion is a rule of comity. “Comity”, in this context, is that measure of deference and consideration that the federal judiciary must afford to the co-equal judicial systems of the various states. Exhaustion, then, serves an interest not of state prosecutors but of state courts. It follows, therefore, that the state court interest which underlies the exhaustion requirement of § 2254(b) cannot be conceded or waived by state prosecutors — for the state court interest in having “the initial ‘opportunity to pass upon and correct’ alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights” is simply not an interest that state prosecutors have been empowered to yield. “Waiver,” like “concession,” is not a talisman, the incantation of which will cause the exhaustion requirement to disappear. That requirement remains, (footnote omitted).
At 96.
Sometimes, when the self-generation of a legal doctrine through selective regurgitation of case law reaches extremes, it is appropriate to go back to first principles and to reexamine the premises underlying the doctrine. The doctrine to which the majority says it adheres is that “comity” is owed not to sovereignties, but to judges. This fallacy, to which I have referred on another occasion,3 is basic.
I start with the proposition that the only source of the obligation of a federal court having subject matter jurisdiction (which here the majority concedes) to give judgment preclusion effect to state court judgments is statutory. Unlike state courts, which are explicitly bound both by the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Supremacy Clause, federal courts exercising the judicial power of a separate, and in federal law matters superior, sovereignty would be free, except for a federal statute to the contrary, to disregard the res judicata effect of state court judgments. The statute which is the source of our obligation to give any judgment preclusion effect to a state court judgment, civil or criminal, is the Act of May 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 122, now found in the last paragraph of 28 U.S.C. § 1738. That statute obliges us to afford to such judgments, as well as to state statutes, “the same full faith and credit ... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State . .
Prior to 1867 that statute had no great significance for judgments in state criminal cases, as the lower federal courts lacked a subject matter jurisdiction under which such judgments might be brought in issue. In that period the Supreme Court, bound by the proviso in § 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 85, was obliged to defer to state court decisions on state law issues, though it possessed appellate jurisdiction over state court judgments rejecting federal claims, even in criminal cases. See Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821). States-Rights advocates objected strenuously to the invasion of state sover*103eignty represented by Cohens v. Virginia, but, so far as I know, even Spencer Roan, fulminating in the Richmond Enquirer against the constitutionality of § 25, never suggested that the state judges of Virginia had an interest, separate from the Virginia Commonwealth, in freedom from interference by another sovereign with its judgment. See generally C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History, Vol. I at 554-59 (1922). And since Cohens v. Virginia it has not been successfully contended that any federal court having subject matter jurisdiction has any constitutional, as distinguished from statutory, obligation to give preclusive effect to a determination of federal law by a state court.
“Comity” is a term borrowed from international law, having nothing to do with the relationship between judges, but referring to the relationship between sovereigns. As Justice Gray explains in Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113,163,16 S.Ct. 139,143, 40 L.Ed. 95 (1895):
No law has any effect, of its own force, beyond the limits of the sovereignty from which its authority is derived. The extent to which the law of one nation, as put in force within its territory, whether by executive order, by legislative act, or by judicial decree, shall be allowed to operate within the dominion of another nation, depends upon what our greatest jurists have been content to call “the comity of nations.” Although the phrase has often been criticized, no satisfactory substitute has been suggested.
“Comity”, in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws.
Since federal law, constitutional and statutory, operates within the territory of the states ex proprio vigore by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, as a matter of absolute obligation rather than as a matter of grace, the use of the term comity in the context of the federal union has always been misleading. The law, if any, to which federal sovereignty affords comity cannot be the state’s pronouncement of federal law, but only the state’s pronouncement of its own criminal, civil, or procedural law.
Use of this misleading term first crept into the interpretation of the Act of May 26, 1790 not as a way of imposing greater obligations on federal courts regarding state judgments, but as a limitation on the rather absolute wording of that statute. In D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How. 165, 13 L.Ed. 648 (1850), for example, the Court considered a New York statute which provided that a New York judgment in a suit against a partnership was good against all partners so long as one was served. Despite the plain language of the May 26,1790 Act, the Court held that the New York judgment need not be enforced by a federal court sitting in Louisiana against a partner not served in New York. All that was intended by the 1790 Congress, the Court reasoned, was to codify settled principles of international law — comity—which did not require recognition of the effect of the New York statute.4 See also McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312, 10 L.Ed. 177 (1839); Thompson v. Whitman, 85 U.S. 457, 21 L.Ed. 897 (1873). But to rely on the principle of comity as a reason for restricting the application of the Act of May 26, 1790 is something quite different from the use to which the term has been put by the majority.
In 1867, in its first grant of original federal question jurisdiction, Congress passed the Act of February 5, 1867, 14 Stat. 385, *104which eliminated the proviso in § 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 prohibiting federal courts from issuing writs of habeas corpus for state prisoners. For reasons which need not here detain us,5 that statute did not reach the Supreme Court until 1886. In Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 6 S.Ct. 734, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886), a pretrial habeas corpus challenge to a state court indictment, the Court construed the language of the 1867 statute as permitting the denial of the writ pending exhaustion of state remedies. There, the Court spoke of comity, not between judges, but between tribunals of separate sovereignties. The Royall holding was codified in 1948. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). If there is any statutory authority for the proposition that comity means not only comity to the sovereignty of New Jersey, represented by its highest law officer, but also, and separately comity to the tender feelings of the state court judges, it must be in that codification. I do not find it in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), either expressly or by reasonable implication. Nor would I put it there, since, despite the majority’s ipsl dixit, there is no interest of the state court judges, separate from that of the sovereign whose judicial power they exercise, worthy of federal recognition, as an additional obstacle to the enforcement of the Supremacy Clause. Indeed, if there were such a separate interest, the dryly logical extension of its federal recognition (which would not surprise me in the current climate of hostility to federal Supremacy Clause remedies) would be a requirement that separate counsel be appointed to represent the state judges both in habeas corpus cases and on direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
But, even assuming arguendo the correctness of the majority’s position, that the doctrine of comity is concerned with the operation of the concurrent judicial systems; the majority, in the instant case, does a grave and inexcusable injustice to the very principles it purports to recognize. As I have stated, New Jersey has statutorily granted its Attorney General authority to speak on behalf of its Judiciary in federal proceedings. For a federal court to determine, sua sponte, that this state delegation of power is to be ignored is an unjustified and unnecessary intrusion into the interrelationships between the separate judiciaries, and, more importantly, the separate sover-eignties. And to justify such an intrusion in the name of comity, a doctrine which all agree is primarily concerned with respecting the powers of other institutions, is to make a mockery of the doctrine. In the final analysis, in the name of comity the majority has concluded that the New Jersey Courts are not only deserving of respect from the federal judiciary but also in need of protection from a state legislature which has conferred on that State’s Attorney General authority to determine the propriety of waiving the exhaustion requirement in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.
IV
The majority holding, making the exhaustion requirement essentially an element of subject matter jurisdiction, is inconsistent with the settled case law of the Third Circuit. E. g. United States ex. rel. Richardson v. Rundle, 461 F.2d 860, 864 (3d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 911, 93 S.Ct. 971, 35 L.Ed.2d 273 (1973); United States ex rel. Gockley v. Myers, 411 F.2d 216, 219 (3d Cir. 1969) (in banc), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 847, 90 S.Ct. 96, 24 L.Ed.2d 96 (1969); United States ex rel. Boyance v. Myers, 372 F.2d 111, 112 (3d Cir. 1967). The majority opinion, without mentioning Richardson or Gockley, urges that Boyance was overruled, sub silentio, in Zicarelli v. Gray, 543 F.2d 466 (3d Cir. 1976) (in banc). If Zicarelli overruled Richardson, Gockley and Boyance it certainly did so by stealth, since they are nowhere mentioned. Attributing to the court in banc an intention to overrule them by silence in Zicarelli v. Gray is simply not a candid treatment of that opinion, or of the issue it addresses.
*105The circumstances of Zicarelli and this case are entirely different, for in Zicarelli one sixth amendment claim, the “previously-ascertained-by-law” issue, actually did not surface until the oral argument before this court in banc. It had not been presented even to the federal district court. The other claim in dispute on the issue of exhaustion related to the “cross-section” requirement of the sixth amendment. Since the cross-section claim was factually related to the previously-ascertained-by-law claim, as to which state proceedings were undis-putedly required, we held that “it would best serve the interest of judicial economy and efficiency of Zicarelli to present his cross-section claim at the same time.” 543 F.2d at 475. To suggest that had the previously-ascertained-by-law claim been litigated in the district court by the Attorney General we would nonetheless have vacated the judgment and required relitigation is to read something into Zicarelli that simply is not there. Finding it there is an example of the wish being father to the thought.
Furthermore, there is no discussion in Zicarelli on the question of whether a state attorney general may waive the exhaustion requirement. The absence of such a discussion is quite understandable given the fact that there was no waiver issue in Zicarelli, and that federal courts are not in the business of writing advisory opinions. To infer from this court’s rejection of the state’s attempt in Zicarelli to concede a legal point it had vigorously pursued and lost in federal district court, the overruling of this court’s express rule in Boyance allowing waiver, brings into sharp focus the inherent conflict between this court’s longstanding rule that a panel of this court cannot overrule a prior decision of this court and broad interpretations of the scope of this court’s in banc decisions.
V
The strenuous efforts of the majority to separate the interests of the state judges, by a misinterpretation of § 2254(b), and in disregard of settled precedents in this circuit, obviously would not have been undertaken if the majority could comfortably affirm, on the merits, the dismissal of the legal issues raised in claim D. But the federal questions presented by that claim are not so easily disposed of as they were either by the Supreme Court of New Jersey or in the opinion of the district court. Since the majority opinion does not reach those questions, which almost certainly will be presented here again, it is not appropriate for me to say more than that they are serious. I would not, however, because of their difficulty, turn habeas corpus procedure into a kind of obstacle course reminiscent of the days before the demise of the adequate and independent state ground rule in habeas corpus.

. The amendment was orally made during Trantino’s post-conviction hearing:
“Defense Counsel: . . . The petitioner at this point would like to amend a portion of one of the allegations of the Petition, and that is Paragraph H.
I would like to amend and add to that specific complaint the additional complaint that the petitioner was examined by one of his own psychiatric witnesses [Dr. Kesselman] on December 1, while he was then in the course of medication while his psychotic symptoms, if any, would be in a reduced state.”
PCR 264.

. In response to my analysis of Trantino’s New Jersey Supreme Court brief the majority states, at note 17a:
[T]he dissent, [suggests] if the Brady issue is not in “Argument 8” or in Part “H”, look further — 7-look to an amendment which was made orally at the time of Trantino’s post-conviction hearing five years earlier in January 1967. (The referenced “amendment” does not appear anywhere in the New Jersey Supreme Court brief, and is not even reproduced in the text of Point H at page 48 of that brief). Moreover, that “amendment” *100(even if it had been presented to the New Jersey Supreme Court) is similarly devoid of Brady content . .. Significantly Leonard Weinglass, Esq., who was both trial and appellate counsel to Trantino and who thus could have properly formulated a Brady issue on appeal, did not do so. Nor for that matter has Trantino’s present counsel ever referred to or produced for us the very documents such as the New Jersey Supreme Court brief and the transcript of the post-conviction hearing upon which the dissent relies .
(Emphasis in original).
First, the majority’s suggestion that the referenced amendment was not presented to the New Jersey Supreme Court is patently false. Trantino’s New Jersey Supreme Court brief refers expressly to the amendment as evidenced by the above quotation from the brief. Given this express reference, and the fact that the transcript of the hearing at which the amendment was made was a part of the record before the New Jersey Supreme Court, there is absolutely no question that the amendment was presented to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Secondly, the significance of the majority’s observation that Leonard Weinglass, Esq. “could have properly formulated a Brady issue on appeal [and] did not do so”, escapes me. If the majority is judicially noticing the legal ability of Mr. Weinglass to present a Brady claim I can only say that this is a novel, and clearly incorrect, use of that evidentiary principle.
Finally, the majority’s assertion that Tranti-no’s present counsel has never produced for us Trantino’s New Jersey Supreme Court brief and the transcript of the post-conviction hearing is a bald misstatement. Both of these documents were introduced into evidence in the federal district court habeas corpus proceedings and both are part of the record before this court. See federal court Exhibits R-29 and R-18; Fed.R.App.P. 10(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(f).

. E. g., Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976); Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976); Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536, 96 S.Ct. 1708, 48 L.Ed.2d 149 (1976); Wainwright v. Sykes,-U.S.-, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977).

. State v. New Jersey v. Chesimard, 555 F.2d 63 (3d Cir. filed March 9, 1977) (Gibbons’ J., dissenting).

. Today, the same result might be required because of the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment.

. See Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1869).