« AnteriorContinuar »
that provision of the act of 5th of February, 1867, to amend the judicial act of 1789, which authorized appeals to this court from the decisions of the Circuit Courts in cases of habeas corpus, does not except from the appellate jurisdiction of this court any cases but appeals under the act of 1867. It does not affect the appellate jurisdiction which was previously exercised in cases of hubeas corpus. Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506.
26. (Dec., 1868.) In all cases where a Circuit Court of the United States has, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, caused a prisoner to be brought before it, and bas, aster inquiring into the cause of detention, remanded him to the custody from which he was taken, this court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, may, by the writ of habeas corpus, aided by the writ of certiorari, revise the decision of the Circuit Court, and if it be found unwarranted by law, relieve the prisoner from the unlawful restraint to which he has been remanded. Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85.
27. The second section of the act of March 27, 1868, repealing so much of the act of Feb. 5, 1867, as authorized appeals from the Circuit Courts to the Supreme Court, does not take away or affect the appellate jurisdiction of this court by habeas corpus, under the Constitution and the acts of Congress prior to the date of the last-named act. 16.
28. (Oct., 1873.) The doctrine of this court affirmed, and the cases in support of it cited, that, where a prisoner shows that he is held under a judgment of a federal court, made without authority of law, the Supreme Court will, by writs of habeas corpus and certiorari, look into the record so far as to ascertain that fact; and, if it is found to be so, will discharge the prisoner. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163.
29. The general principle asserted as applicable to both civil and criminal cases, that judgments, orders, and decrees of the courts of this country are under their control during
the term at which they are made, so that they may be set aside or modified as law and justice may require. 16.
30. But it is also declared that this power cannot be so used as to violate the guaranties of personal rights found in the common law, and in the constitutions of the states and of the Union. 16.
31. (Oct., 1875.) Writs of error and appeals lie to this court from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Montana only in cases where the value of the property or the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $1,000, and from decisions upon writs of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom. Rev. Stat. sec. 1909. Potts v. Chumasero, 2 Otto, 358.
32. (Oct., 1876.) Where an inferior court has jurisdiction of the cause and the person, in a criminal suit, and no writ of error lies from this court, it will not, on habeas corpus, review the legality of the proceedings. Ex parte Parks, 3 Otto, 18.
33. It is only where the proceedings below are entirely void, either for want of jurisdiction or other cause, that such relief will be given. Ib.
31. Whether a matter for which a party is indicted in the District Court is, or is not, a crime against the laws of the United States, is a question within the jurisdiction of that court which it must decide. Its decision will not be reviewed here by habeas corpus. Ib.
35. Ex parte Yerger (8 Wall. 85) and Ex parte Lange (18 id. 163) referred to and approved. 16.
36. (Oct., 1879.) Tield, that while a writ of habeas corpus cannot generally be made to subserve the purposes of a writ of error, yet, when a prisoner is held without any lawful anthority, and by an order which an inferior court of the United States had no jurisdiction to make, this court will, in favor of liberty, grant the writ, not to review the whole case, but to examine the authority of the court below to act at all. Ex parte Virginia, 10 Otto, 339.
37. (Oct., 1879.) Certain judges of election in the city of Baltimore, appointed under state laws, were convicted in the Circuit Court of the United States, under secs. 5515 and 5522 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, for interfering with and resisting the supervisors of election and deputy marshals of the United States in the performance of their duty at the election of representatives to Congress, under secs. 2016, 2017, 2021, 2022, title xxvi., of the Revised Statutes. Held, that the question of the constitutionality of said laws is good ground for the issue by this court of a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the legality of the imprisonment under such conviction, and if the laws are determined to be wiconstitutional, the prisoner should be discharged. Ex parte Siebold, 10 Otto, 371.
38. The appellate jurisdiction of this court, exercisible by the writ of habeas corpus, extends to a case of imprisonment upon conviction and sentence of a party by an inferior court of the United States, under and by virtue of an unconstitutional act of Congress, whether this court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of conviction by writ of error or not. Ib.
39. The jurisdiction of this court by habeas corpus, when not restrained by some special law, extends generally to imprisonment pursuant to the judgment of an inferior tribunal of the United States which has no jurisdiction of the cause, or whose proceedings are otherwise void and not merely erroneous; and such a case occurs when the proceedings are had under an unconstitutional act. 16.
40. Where personal liberty is concerned, the judgment of an inferior court affecting it, is not so conclusive but that the question of its authority to try and imprison the party may be reviewed on habeas corpus by a superior court or judge having power to award the writ. Ib.
41. The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction of indictments under these laws [secs. 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2022,
5515, and 5522 of the Revised Statutes], and a sentence in pursuance of a verdict of condemnation is lawful cause of imprisonment, from which this court has no power to relieve on habeas corpus. 16.
42. (Oct., 1879.) In such a case [conviction for a violation of law in reference to the ballot-box] a habeas corpus for discharge from imprisonment under the conviction, was rightfully issued by a justice of this court, returnable before himself; and he had the right, if it could be done without injury to the prisoner, to refer the matter to this court for its determination, it being a case which involved the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Ex parte Clarke, 10 Otto, 399.
43. Had the case involved original jurisdiction only, this court could not have taken jurisdiction of it. Ib.
Power of Judges to grant Writs of Habeas Corpus.
Sec. 752. The several justices and judges of the said courts, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the
purpose of inquiry into the cause of restraint of liberty. 24 Sept., 1789, c. 20, s. 14, v. 1, p. 81. 2 March, 1833, c. 57, s. 7, v. 4, p. 634. 29 Aug., 18.12, c. 257, s. 1, v. 5, p. 539. 5 Feb., 1867, c. 28, s. 1,
385. 10 April, 1869, c. 22, s. 2, v. 16, p. 44.
The clerk of this court shall reside and keep the office at the seat of the national government, and he shall not practice, either as an attorney or counselor, in this court, or any other court, while he shall continue to be clerk of this court.
The clerk shall not permit any original record or paper to be taken from the court-room, or from the office, without an order from the court.
It shall be requisite to the admission of attorneys or counselors, to practice in this court, that they shall have been such for three years past in the Supreme Courts of the states to which they respectively belong, and that their private and professional character shall appear to be fair.
They shall respectively take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, viz. :I,
do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will demean myself, as an attorney and counselor of this court, uprightly, and according to law; and that I will support the Constitution of the United States.