habeas corpus to examine the validity of commitments under federal process. We have had, it is true, rulings by federal 1 1875; Harlan v. People, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 207; State v. McPherson, 9 Iowa, 53, 1859; Sizemore v. State, 3 Head, 26, 1859; People v. White, 34 Cal. 183, 1868; though see Rouse v. State, 4 Ga. 136, 1848. See, for a fuller discussion, Whart. Com. Am. Law, & 524. In South Carolina, the courts at one time went the extreme length of saying that every offence against the laws of the United States is an offence against the laws of South Carolina and that she has a right to punish all violations of her law, unless the exclusive power to punish has been delegated by the Constitution of the United States to the judiciary established by it. State v. Wills, 2 Hill, (S. C.) 687, 1835. Such, however, seems now no longer the law in that State. State v. McBride, Rice, 400, 1839. In Pennsylvania it is settled that while the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of offences of which Pennsylvania has no common law or statutory cognizance, e. g., embezzlement by officer of national bank; Com. v. Ketner, 92 Pa. 372, 1880; it is otherwise with offences of which Pennsylvania has common law or statutory jurisdiction, e. g., forgery at common law. Com. v. Luberg, 94 Pa. 85, 1880. In Bletz v. Columbia Bank, 87 Pa. 87, 1878, we have the following from Agnew, C. J.: "We may now refer to some of our own decisions and laws. Thus it was held that our courts had jurisdiction of a forgery of power of attorney to obtain a pension under an act of Congress. Com. v. Shaffer, 4 Dallas, App. 26, 1797. In White v. Com., 4 Binn. 418, 1812, this court decided that passing a counterfeit note of the Bank of the United States was indictable under the Act of 22d April, 1794, specially including the notes of that bank." After noticing Buckwalter v. U. S., 11 S. & R. 193, 1824, and Huber v. Reily, 53 Pa. 112, 1866, the opinion thus proceeds: "The legislation of our State has run in the same direction. In 1829, Judge King, Thomas I. Wharton, and Judge Shaler, reported the penal act of that year. The Act of 23d April, 1829, provided for forging and uttering any gold or silver coin then or thereafter passing or in circulation in this State, and for forging, counterfeiting, or uttering a counterfeit note of the Bank of the United States. In 1860 the same great criminal lawyer, Judge King, with Judge Knox, and another, was upon a commission to codify the criminal law, and reported the new sections of the Act of 31st March, 1860, from 156 to 163 inclusive, punishing offences relating to the coin; and in the report referred to the laws of the United States, and the case of Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410; deciding upon an elaborate argument that the clauses of the Constitution of the United States, relating to the power to coin money and regulate its value, do not prevent the State from enacting a law to punish the offence of passing counterfeit coin of the United States. These laws have remained unquestioned, yet I do not assert that none of the provisions applied to the coin of the United States can be questioned." But any doubt that might arise on this point would not touch the indictability of passing counterfeit coin as cheats. As will be hereafter seen, an indictment lies in the U. S. Circuit Court, under the federal statute, against a guardian for embezzling pension money paid to him for his ward. U. S. v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343, cited infra, 1049. 1 See Sergeant's Const. Law, 236, 287; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, Right of courts to from fed judges, that they have exclusive jurisdiction on habeas corpus, whenever the applicant is restrained, illegally or otherwise, under authority of the United States, whether by State virtue of a formal commitment or otherwise.1 But such discharge claim was not recognized by the State courts, and cases eral arare not in frequent in which by the latter tribunals rests. persons held by the military authorities of the United States, under color of illegal enlistments, have been discharged. On the other hand, it was at one time held in New York that a State court will not, on habeas corpus, review the legality of the arrest of an alleged deserter by a provost marshal of the United States; though this point was subsequently reconsidered, and it was held that the court would issue the writ to direct a provost marshal to produce an infant, under eighteen years, whom he claimed to hold as a soldier and deserter.* In 1867 a case of collision arose in New York between the federal and State courts on this issue, under the following circum That 1816; State v. Dimmick, 12 N. H. 194, Fowler, 2 Am. L. J. Rep. 4. 1841; Com. v. Chandler, 11 Mass. 83, the exclusive jurisdiction to try the 1814; Com. v. Harrison, 11 Mass. 63, scope and validity of United States 1814; Com. v. Downes, 24 Pick. 227, process is vested in United States 1839; Sanborn v. Carlton, 15 Gray, courts, see In re Johnson, 46 Fed. 399, 1860; McConologue's Case, 107 Rep. 477, 1891; Covell v. Heyman, Mass. 154, 1871; New York R. S. vol. 111 U. S. 176, 1883. Ex parte Royall, ii. 563, 22; 3 Hall's L. J. 206; 5 117 U. S. 241, 1885. Therefore, where Hall's L. J. 497; Lanahan v. Birge, a prisoner confined under sentence of 30 Conn. 438, 1861; Husted's Case, 1 federal courts is released by virtue of Johns. Cas. 136, 1801; In re Stacy, a writ issued out of a State court, he 10 Johns. 328, 1813; U. S. v. Wyngall, may be rearrested on order of the fed5 Hill, 16, 1843; Barlow's Case, 8 eral court. In re Johnson, 46 Fed. West. Law J. 567; Com. v. Camac, 1 Rep. 477, S. & R. 87, 1814; Com. v. Fox, 7 Pa. 336, 1847; Com. v. Wright, 3 Grant, 276, 1860. See, also, Ex parte Hamil437, 1863 Ex parte Mason, 1 Murphy, ton, 1 Ben. 455, 1867; but see Norris v. 336, 1809 Disinger's Case, 12 Ohio St. Newton, 5 McL. 92, 1850; U. S. v. 256, 1861; Higgins's Case, 16 Wis. 351, Rector, Ibid. 174, 1850; Veremaitre's see Spangler's Case, 11 Case, 13 Am. Law Rep. 608. Mich. 298, 1862; In re Willis, 38 Ala. 429, 1865. In Whart. Cr. Pl. & Pr. a, 980 et seq. will be found rulings of the U. S. Supreme Court on the topics in the text. 1864; though #783 1 In re Farrand, 1 Abb. (U.S.) 140, 1891. 2 Ex parte Reynolds, 6 Parker C. R. 3 In re Hopson, 40 Barb. 34, 1863; Ex parte Anderson, 16 Iowa, 595, 1864. Ex parte Barrett, 42 Barb. 479, 1863. See People v. Gaul, 44 Barb. 98, 1865; In re Martin, 45 Barb. 142, 1867; Ex parte McDonald, 9 Am. Law 1865. Reg. 662;1 Low. 100, 1865; Farrand v. stances: A commander in the army of the United States made return to a writ of habeas corpus issued by the State court, that he held the petitioner as a recruit in the United States army, and pursuant to laws of the United States regulating enlistments. The State court examined the validity of the enlistment, determined it to be invalid, and directed the recruit to be discharged. The officer refused to discharge him, and the State court committed the officer for contempt. The commander sued out a habeas corpus in the District Court of the United States, who discharged him, holding that the State court exceeded its jurisdiction in examining the validity of the enlistment; and that it had no power to proceed beyond ascertaining that the officer held the recruit by color of authority from the United States.' It is, no doubt, clear that a habeas corpus issued by a State judge has no authority within the limits of the sovereignty assigned by the Constitution to the United States; but at the same time each court, on application made to it for this writ, is compelled to determine where the limits of such sovereignty are to be placed. It is conceded on all sides that the State courts cannot, on habeas corpus, examine whether a particular offence, charged in an indictment found in a federal court, is or is not an offence against the United States, or go beyond such indictment. And in 1871 the question was settled, so far as concerns enlistments, by an express ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States to the effect that State courts have no jurisdiction to discharge in such cases by habeas corpus, the exclusive jurisdiction. being in the federal courts.5 It is otherwise, however, in respect to matters of which the federal government has not exclusive jurisdiction. In such case the courts of the States "have the right to inquire into the grounds 1 In re Farrand, 1 Abb. (U. S.) may be inquired into by a federal 140, 1867. 2 Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard, 506, 1858; Ex parte Sifford, 5 Am. Law Reg. 659; Ex parte Kelly, 37 Ala. 474, 1864. court, see Ex parte Schmeid, 1 Dill. 587, 1871; McCall's Case, 5 Phila. 259, 1863; McCall v. McDowell, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 212, 1867. In case of the enlistment of minors, the right is not 3 Though see In re Farrand, 1 Abb. taken away by the federal statutes of (U. S) 140, 1867. * Ex parte Hill, 5 Nev. 154, 1869. 5 Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. 399, 1871. This question is fully considered in Whart. Cr. Pl. & Pr. 2 978 et seq. That the validity of an enlistment 1864, though it is not now within the jurisdiction of State courts. In re Neill, 8 Blatch. 156, 1871; In re McDonald, 1 Low. 100, 1865; 9 Am. Law Reg. 662. See In re Hanchett, 18 Fed. Rep. 26, 1883. upon which any person, within their respective territorial limits, is restrained of his liberty, and to discharge him, if it be ascertained that such restraint is illegal; and this, notwithstanding such illegality may arise from a violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States," $268. In the Revised Statutes of the United States (edition 1878), compiling the previous statutes on this subject the following provisions are made as to writs of habeas corpus : Federal courts have statutory pow habeas cor (751) The Supreme Court and the Circuit and Dis- ers of trict Courts shall have power to issue writs of habeas pus in fedcorpus 2 eral cases. (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 an inquiry into the cause of re straint of liberty.3 1 Harlan, J., Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624-639, 1883. Under this provision are cited the acts of Sept. 24, 1789; April 10, 1869; March 2, 1833; Feb. 5, 1867; Aug. 29, 1842, and the following cases: Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17, 1797; Burford, 3 Cr. 448, 1805; Bollman, 4 Cr. 75, 1808; U.S. v. Ex parte Ex parte 1867; Ex parte Evarts, 7 Am. Law Rep. 79; Norris v. Newton, 5 McL. 92, 1850; U. S. v. Rector, 5 McL. 174, 1850; Veremaitre's Case, 13 Am. Law Rep. 608; Ex parte Sifford, 5 Am. Law Rep. 659; Ex parte McCan, 14 Am. Law Rep. 158; U. S. v. French, 1 Gallis. 1, 1814; U. S. v. Anderson, Cooke, 143; Ex parte Cheeney, 5 Law Ex parte Wilson, 6 Cr. 52, 1810; Ex Rep. 19; Ex parte Des Rochers, 1 parte Kearney, 7 Wh. 38, 1823; Er McAll. 68, 1855; Ex parte Pleasants, 4 parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 1830; Ibid. Cr. C. C. 314, 1834; Ex parte Turner, 7 Pet. 568, 1833; Ex parte Milburn, 6 Int. Rev. Rec. 147; Ex parte Jenkins, 9 Pet. 704, 1834; Holmes v. Jenni- 2 Wall. Jr. 521, 1853; Ex parte Robinson, 14 Pet. 540, 1840; Ex parte Barry, 2 How. 65, 1844; Ex parte Dorr, 3 How. 103, 1845; Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. 103, 1847; In re Metzger, 5 How. 176, 1847; In re Kaine, 14 How. Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 103, 1852 2, 1866; son, 6 McL. 355, 1855; Ex parte Smith, 3 McL. 121, 1842; Meade's Case, 1 Brock. 324, 1819; Fisk v. Un. Pac. R. R., 10 Blatch. 518, 1873; In re Stupp, 11 Blatch. 124, 1873; In re McDonnell, 11 Blatch. 79, 170, 1873; In re 307, 1855; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. Thomas, 12 Blatch. 370, 1874; In re Ex parte McCardle, 6 Wall. Giacamo, 12 Blatch. 391; In re Stupp, 318, 1867; Ibid. 7 Wall. 506, 1868; 12 Blatch. 501, 1875; In re Bird, 2 Saw. Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85, 1868; 33, 1871; In re Bogart, 2 Saw. 396, Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 1873; 1873. In re Heinrich, 5 Blatch. 414, 1867; 3 Under this provision are cited the Ex parte Keeler, Hemps. 306, 1845; acts of Sept. 24, 1789; April 10, 1869; U.S. v. Williamson, 3 Am. Law Rep. March 2, 1833; Feb. 5, 1867; Aug. 729; Bennet v. Bennet, 1 Deady, 299, 29, 1842. (753) "The writ of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to a prisoner in jail, unless where he is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States, or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of a law of the United States, or of an order, process, or decree of a court or judge thereof; or is in custody in violation of the Constitution or of a law or treaty of the United States; or, being a subject or citizen of a foreign State, and domiciled therein, is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, or order, or sanction of any foreign State, or under color thereof, the validity and effect whereof depend upon the law of nations, or unless it is necessary to bring the prisoner into court to testify." The courts of the United States have, it is ruled, not merely jurisdiction to inquire, on habeas corpus, into the legality of all commitments under federal process, civil or military, but may issue the 1 Under this provision are cited the acts of Sept. 24, 1789; March 2, 1833; Feb. 5, 1867; Aug. 29, 1842, and the following cases: Ex parte Dorr, 3 How. 103, 1845; Ex parte Barnes, 1 Sprague, 133, 1855; Ex parte Bridges, 2 Woods, 428, 1875. See Rev. Stat. U. S. 1878, 763. See Whart. Cr. Pl. & Pr. 22 978 et seq. By the Act of March 27, 1868, the appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States was restricted. Under the Act of 1867, a person held under arrest, by order of a State tribunal, in violation of any law of the United States, may be released by a federal court. Ex parte Seymour, 1 Ben. 348, 1866. See, also, Ex parte Robinson, 6 McL. 355, 1855; Ex parte Jenkins, 2 Wall. Jr. 521, 1853; Ex parte Des Rochers, 1 McAll. 68, 1855. 506, 1868. And hence the Supreme Court of the United States has appellate jurisdiction, on habeas corpus, to relieve from unlawful imprisonment one committed for trial by a military tribunal, and remanded, after a hearing, by a district court. Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 85, 1869. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on appeal, taken away by the Act of March 27, 1868, was finally restored by the Act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. at Large, 437. But under this act the appeal lies only from the final decision of the circuit court, and not from the decision of a circuit judge sitting as a judge and not as a court. Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 U. S. 87, 1886. The Supreme Court does not have appellate jurisdiction, in habeas corpus The Act of March 27, 1868, taking cases, over a naval court-martial, nor away an appeal to the Supreme Court over offences which it has power to of the United States, has been held try. Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, only to apply to proceedings under 1884. the Act of February 5, 1867. See 2 Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, Rev. Stat. U. S. 1878, 763. The prior 1866; Meade's Case, 1 Brock. 324, appellate jurisdiction in habeas corpus 1819; Ex parte Keeler, Hemp. 306, remains. Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 1843. |