Court Opinion

ID: 9417494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:19:31.885096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:44.179585
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Field
dissenting.
The petitioners and appellants were indicted in the District Court of the United States for the District of Indiana for an alleged conspiracy to commit an offence against the United States, and were convicted arid sentenced to pay a fine and be imprisoned.- The fine of Bernhamer was one thousand dollars, and his imprisonment was for one year; the fine of Coy was one hundred dollars, and his imprisonment was for eighteen months. The offence charged was that the accused conspired with one Perkins to induce the inspectors of an election held in Indiana, in November, 1886, at which a Representative in Congress was voted for, to omit a duty imposed upon them by the laws of that State, to safely keep the poll lists' of the voters, the tally papers, and the certificates of the judges, of election, until they were delivered to the clerk of the county, or to its board of canvassers, by whom the votes were to be examined and counted; and, to effect the object of the conspiracy, persuaded the inspectors to deliver those papers to persons who had no‘-authority to take charge of them. .
On .this appeal we can only inquire whether the Circuit Court erred in refusing to issue the writ; and I admit, in determining upon the propriety of issuing it, the sole, question that court could consider was whether the District ..Court of Indiana, in which the appellants were indicted, tried, and convicted, had jurisdiction of the offence and of the parties accused, and to render the .judgment pronounced. ' As was said in Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 375: “The only ground *761on which this court, or any court, without some special statute authorizing it, will give release on habeas corpus to a prisoner under conviction and sentence of another court, is the want of jurisdiction in such court over the person or the cause, or some other matter rendering its proceedings void.” But that this' court and the Circuit Court can exercise jurisdiction by habeas corpus, in cases where it is alleged that by the action of an inferior tribunal a citizen of the United States has been unlawfully deprived of his personal liberty, is well established; and they can look into the record of the inferior court, under whose judgment the parties are restrained of their liberty, to ascertain whether it had jurisdiction to hold and try them, and render the judgment. If it appear upon such examination that the inferior court had jurisdiction, the further consideration of the case is ended. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be made to take the place of a writ of error, so as to authorize an examination into any alleged errors of the inferior court in reaching its conclusion. But if it had no jurisdiction over the parties or of the offence with which they are charged, or to render the judgment, 'the Circuit Court and this court can interfere and discharge them. The broad doctrine laid down in Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, that where no revision by a higher court of the judgment of a court in a criminal case is authorized, another court will not inquire into its jurisdiction upon habeas corpus, has been modified by subsequent decisions.
As in the present case no objection was made before the Circuit Court, or is made here, to the jurisdiction of the District Court of Indiana over the persons of the accused, or to render the judgment pronounced, if the offence charged was one of which that court could take cognizance, the sole question before us is whether the indictment charges an offence thus cognizable.
In Ex parte Siebold and Ex parte Clarke, reported in 100 U. S. 371, 399, it was held that Congress had the power under the Constitution to adopt the laws of the States respecting-the election of officers of the States, where at such election a member of Congress is to be voted for, and that it could impose a punishment for a violation of such laws. This was *762held in the face of the objection that it was not competent for Congress to punish a state officer for the manner in which he discharged the duties imposed upon him by the laws of the State; nor to make the exercise of its punitive power depend upon the legislation of the States. But the court at the same time held that the adoption by Congress of the laws of the State only extended so far as the election concerned Bepresentatives in Congress. Its language was: If, for its own convenience, a State sees fit to elect state and county officers at the same time, and in conjunction with the election of representatives, Congress will not thereby be deprived of the right to make regulations in reference to the latter.- "We do not mean to say, however, that for any acts of officers of election, having exclusive reference to the election of state or county officers, they will be amenable to Federal jurisdiction ; nor do we understand that the enactments of Congress now under consideration have any application to such acts.” 100 U. S. 393.
■ It would seem, therefore, essential in an indictment presented in a United States court, for an offence cognizable by that court under these state laws, that it should aver that the violation of them was intended to affect the election of a member of Congress. How inspectors of election or other officers of a State may conduct the elections, so far as those elections relate 'to state officers, and -what liability they may incur in such cases for the omission of duties imposed upon them by state laws, are matters entirely within the cognizance of the state tribunals. A violation of the state laws as to the election of persons to fill state offices cannot be made the subject of punishment by a federal court, nor, of course, a conspiracy to induce state officers to violate those laws. The judicial power of the United States does not extend to a case of that kind. The Constitution defines and limits that power. It declares that the power shall extend to cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made under their authority; to cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and to various contro*763versies to which the United States or a State may be a party, or between citizens of different States, or citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, or between citizens of a State and any foreign State, citizens or subjects. Whilst the judicial power thus defined and limited may be applied to new cases as they arise under the Constitu • tion and laws of the United States, it cannot be extended by Congress so as to include cases not enumerated in that instrument, as has been often held by this court.
The indictment in this case charges a conspiracy to. induce certain election officers appointed under the laws of Indiana to commit a crime against the United States, the crime being the alleged omission by them to perform certain duties imposed by the laws of that State respecting elections. But it contains no allegation that the alleged conspiracy was to affect the election of a member of Congress; which, as said -above, appears to me to be essential to bring the offence within the jurisdiction of the court. If the conspiracy was to affect the election of a state officer, no offence was committed cognizable in the District Court of the United States. If it had any other object than to affect the election of a member of Congress, it was a matter exclusively for the cognizance of the state courts.
In several States, and probably in a majority of them, numerous officers, state, county, city, and village, are elected at the same time with representatives in Congress; and according to the present decision a conspiracy to persuade the officers of election to omit any duty imposed upon them under the laws of the State, though designed merely to affect the election of an inferior magistrate of a village, is an offence against the United States, punishable in the Federal courts. Thus, obedience to the laws of the State in matters of even local offices, if a member of Congress is voted for at the same election, may be enforced by the courts of the United States, instead of by the proper tribunals of the State whose laws have been violated. I am not able to assent to a doctrine which leads to this result, and gives the Federal courts power to intermeddle with the action of state officials in an election *764for local offices whenever a member of Congress may have . been voted for at the same time. I agree to what is said by the court as to the temptations existing in a republican government, where political power is reposed in representatives of the entire body of the people, chosen at short intervals by popular elections, to control those elections by violence and corruption. But I do not perceive in that fact any reason why the punishment of fraud committed or designed at state elections for. state officers should be transferred to the Federal courts. The States are as much interested in guarding against frauds at such elections, and in maintaining their purity, as it is possible for the general government to be. They do not .require for their protection in such matters the aid of the general government, any more than in other domestic affairs. As .observed on a former occasion, “they are invested with the sole power to régulate domestic affairs of the highest moment to the prosperity and happiness of their people, affecting the acquisition, enjoyment, transfer, and descent of property;, the marriage relation and the education of children; and if such momentous and vital concerns may be wisely and safely intrusted to them, I do not think that any apprehension need be felt if the supervision of elections in t-heir respective States should also be left to them,” where, I may add, it properly belongs.
I am of opinion that the writ of habeas corpus should have been issued in this case by the Circuit Court, and that its order denying the petition of the appellants should, therefore, be reversed.