States. It may be said of them gen'eriiIIy; and especially of tJle last, that U;llY have the effect greatly to enlarge the jurisdiction: of the ,courts 'and jUdges of the United States in the use of the writ of habeas corpua..Tb;ey'have removed the impediment to its use which formerly existedalld whlch wasJmposed by the act of 1789, where a prisoner was,committedunderstate authority, provided his imprisonment is contra,ry to the constitutiQn of, ,the United States or treaties with foreigll' nations, or, the laws,of congress.! § 4. UNDERTHE'JUDICIARY' ACT OF 1789. The jUdiciary act of 1789, after prescribing the jurisdiction of the district andeircuit courts of the United States, and that of the supreme court, contains' the follOWing section: "That the before-mentioned courts of the United States shall have power to issue writs ofscil'ej'acias,habeas carpus, 'and all other writs not specially provided for by whicbthaybe necessary forthe exerciseo! their respective jurisdictions :ilM,llgreeabletothe principles and of lawi 'And that either. cjf .the j-qstices of the su!:,reme'court, as well as the jUdges of the district courts, shall have power to'gT.trit writs of habeas C01-pUS (or the pur-' pose of an inqulryil'1to the cause otcommitment: provided, that writs of habeas, COl'pus shall In no to ptisollers' in jaB, unless where they are in custody under or :t>r.colOi' ofthe'authprity of the, "United States, or are committed for trial before sonie court of the same, 01' are ttecessliry to be brought into court to testify,'12 For more thaI} 40year8 the jurisdiction of the federal courts in tbe use of the writ of 'habeanJ01'pus was' regulated solely by this statute. Under it, not only dr<mit courts of the United' States, but also the judges thereof, were authorIzed t<;dsst}e this writ for the purpose of inq,uiring into causes of cOmniitment, and, except in 'cases where the privilege of the writ suspended, to hear and determine the question whether the<patty was entitle!! to be disCharged.s Theus!! of the writ given by this statute exof the authority of the tends to all cases of an illegal detention under United States.4 It enables a cirCUit court 01 the United; States to inquire into the juriSdiction of a court martial tlonvened undertlie"authority of the United States, by which a: person hasbeen tried for an alleged miI'itary offense,5 Where it appears on return toll. ltabeas corpus thus issued bya judge of a federal court, that the prisoner :is held under an execu'tion of one of the national courts, under, a valid judgment, the court nevertheless has power to discharge him, fot any matter 'arising subsequently to tbe jUdgment, which may inlaw entitle him to his discharge. Theoourt may; therefore, discharge him if it appear that he has been pardoned by the president.6
certiora7'i, is used by the circuit courts of the United States to review the proceedings of commissioners of those courts when acting as examining ,magistrates,? and also when acting by special appointment of a court 'of the United States, in a proceeding for the extradition of a fugitive from the justice of a foreign country, under the act of August 12, 1848, § 8. 8 This:IJractice is an1 Ex parte Bridges, 2 Woods, 428. 89 St. at Large,302 et seg,; Rev. St. § 5270 et 2Act of September 14, 1789, (1 St. at Large, 81.) seq". The following are some ofth"eeaResln which 8 Ex parte Milligan,4 Wall. 2, 110; Ex parte the writ bas been thos used: Re Veremaltre, 9 N. y, Leg. .129; Re Kaine, 10 JIf. Y. Leg. Qbs, Bollman, 4 Crancll, 76. 'ReWlnder,2 Clllf. 89; parte Merryman, 267; Re Hellbronn,12 N. Y. Leg. Obs, 65; Ex Tnney" Dec. 246; lIfatter of McDonald, 9 Amer., ' parte Kaine. 3 Blatchf. 1; Ex parte Van Aernam, Law Re(/;. (0. S.) 661. 3 Blatchf. 160; Re Henrich, 6 Blatchf. 414; He 5Barrett v. Hopkins, 7 Fed. Rep. 312. Com· Farez,7 Blntchf. '34; S. 0, Id. 346; Re MaeDon. pare Wise v. Witllers, 3 Cranch, 331; Dynes v. nelI,l1 Hlatchf. 79; S. C. Id. 170; Ex parte Van Hoven, 4 Dill. 414 ; Ex parte Lane, 6 Fed, Rep, Hoover, 20 HoW. (U, 1'1) 82, SGreathouse's Case, 2 Abb. (U. S,) 382, before 34; Re Fowler, 4 It'ed, Rep. 303; 8. C. IS Blatchf. HOFFMAN, J. 430; He Stopp, 12 Blatch!. 601. 7Re Leszynsky, 26 Int. Rev. Rec. 71.
§ 5. REVIEW UNDlllRTIUSAoT OF PROOEEDINGS trNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS. The writ of habeas corpus, in connection with the writ of
alogous to the well-known use of the ""rit by state courts in Ie-examining the .\Jommitments of examining magistrates. 6. EFFECT OF THE PROVISO OF THIS STATUTE. 'rhe clause oUhis statute which 'has been most frequently drawn in question the proviso which stays the hands of the federal judicatories in the use of the writ of habeas corpns, in all cases where prisoners are held in custody under authority of the states. .Where a prisoner was confined by prucess emanating from a state court, no court of the United States could, in consequence of .this proviso, bl'i ng him up on habeas C01'jJUS fpr any purpose save to examine him as a witness; and it was wholly immaterialwhether the law of the state under which he had been prosecuted was repugnant to theconstitution of tbe United states or not.! An attache of a foreign embassy detained uuder the warrant of a state magistrate for a crime, in manifest violation of the privilege of his sov(\reignand in contravention of the law of nations, couldJ;lot be disclmrged by the circuit court of the United States under this writ. 2 The circuit court of . the United States could not issue this writ at the instan<:e of bail in a civil . case for the purpose of surrElnuering their principal and exonerating themselves, where the principal was confined in jail under. process of a state Although the late war bet'Yeen the states of the Anlerican Union was a civil war, amI the opposing parties were beBigerents,4 and although an ollicer of the confederate army was not righ.tfully amenable to prosecution for acte; doneuIj.der color and in virtue of his office, and could not, therefore, be rightfully held to answer, in the courts of, one of the states, for murder in h!wing been a member of a military court. martial. under whose finding and sentence a citizen of such state.had been executed for an offenfje which was a crime under the laws of war,-nevertheless, where such a person was held in the jail of one of the states to answer an indictment for murder, which illdictment was balled upon the facts stated, it was heid that, under the operation of this prqviso, a fedeljal court had no power to release him on hacorpus.6 In order to present the case of an illegal restraint" under or by color of the authoritypf the United States," within this proviso, it is not necessary to the jurisdiction of the circuit or district courts or that the prisoner should be held under any formal or technical commitment, thongh ordinarily this is necessary to the jurisdiction oUhe supreme court. Accordingly, jurisdiction at circuit has been asserted to issue this writ in cases where citizens are held in imprisonment by military officers of the United States.6 These cases grew out of milita,ry arrests of civilians at the outbreak of the Inte civil wadn 1861, and before the. passage of the act of congress of 1863, and the proclamation of the president thereunder suspending the writ of habeas corpus in certain cases. The decision in the former case was by Chief Justice TANEY at circuit in Maryland, and the latter by Mr. District Judge TREA.T in Missouri. In both of these cases, the use of the writ of habeas corpu,s ad subjiciendum as a means of relieving the citizen from arbitrary arrests without warrant, and in relation to the jurisdiction of the national courts, was considered with learning and ability. § 7. CASES AmSING WITlIIN PLACES OYER WIllcn THE UNITED STATES lIAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION. The constitution of the United States prOVide" that" the congress shall have power * * * to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as the may, by session of particular states and acceptance of congress, seat of the governmeilt of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in
1Ex parte Dorr, 3 How. (U. S.) 103. 2Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. C. C. 232· u. s. v. French, 1 GaU. 2. «The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635. 5 Ex parte McCann, 5 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.)
B Ex parte Merryman. Taney. Dee. 246; Mal. ter of 9 Amer. Law (0. S.) 661.
IN RE BROSNAHAN.
which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings." 1 The true meaning of this clause seems to be that whenever the United States is owner of the land which it uses as a fort, etc., the legislature of the state in which such land is included may permit congress to ,exercise exclusive jurisdiction over it., )Vhere the United States, owning land for the purpose of a military fort within one of its territories, by an act of congress, erects such territory into a 'state,without making any reservation of exclusive jurisdiction to the United States within the limits of the land which it thus holds for the purpose of a military fort, politi. cal jurisdiction over such land passes to the state thus created. 2 But if the legislature of such state subsequently;' upon a suggestion of the federal secretary of war, passes an act ceding exclusive jurisdiction over 8\1ch military reservation to the United States, the act will be effective to vest in the courts of the United States jurisdiction of crimes 'eommi,tted within such reservation, although such jurisdiction has never been fonrially and exp'te'ssly assumed by an act of congress. Reasoning thus, it was' held by Mr. Justice MILLER that a person committed by, a commissioner of the the United States to answer for a crime committed witl1in the lpilitary res'ervation' of Fort Leavenworth, was not entitled to be discharged by habeas corpus. 3 It has also been held that /lfter 'It 'state has peen admitted into ,the Union, 'the fact that within its bounda'ries there is Ialllf, thEi fee' ofwhieh is in the United States, 'which lsset 'apart' as an Indian reservation, is not of itself sufficient to give to a court oHhe Uhited States jurisdiction to try a person for a murder committed within the limits of such reservation. Accordingly, a prisoner held under an indictment in the United States circuit court for the district of Nevada, for a murder alleged to have been committed" at and within the boundaries of the Moapa Intlian reservation of thi'lJUnited States Of A,ri1erica, in the district aforesaid;" was entitled to be discharged 'on habeas COlopUs. 4 On the other hand, by the very terms of the constitution, the jurisdiCtion which is acqUired. by the United States by the cession by a' state of land for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings, and by the acceptance ,of such cession by congress, becomes, by strong inference from the terms of the constitution, an "exclusive" jUdsdiction. It be· comes subject to the "exclusive legislation", of congress; and, though the courts of the several states are bound by the laws of congress as part of the supreme law of the land, and though it is no donbt competent for congress to vest in the state judicatories the power to hear controversies arising under the laws of the United States, and eompetent for tbose judicatories, in the exercise of a comity, though not in pursuance of an obligation, to, assume the exerciseof such power; 6 yet congress has committed' the jurisdiction of crimes within these places exclusively to the federal tribunats, by, enacting that ,. the jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States, in the causes and proceedings hereafter mentioned, shall be exclusive of the courts of the several states: 1. Of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States." 8 I t is accor.dingly held that federal jurisdiction of crimes committed within the limits of a navy-yard of the United States is exclusive of the state in which such navy-yard' is situated, and that a al:rested by state process, on charge of a crime committed within such limits, is arrested in violation of the laws of the United States,within the meaning of section 753 of the nevised Statutes, and is entitled to be discharged -upon habeas corpus by a court of the United States.? '
lOonat, U. S. art. 1, 19. 2U, S, v. Stahl, Woolw. 192, 3Ex parte Hebard, 4 Dill. 380. 'Ex parte Sloan, 4 Sawy. 330. 6The Ilriti.h Prisoners. 1 Woodb.& M.O.C. 70, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. vag, 608. a ACt Sept. 24, 1789.0. 20, 119 and 11; 1 st. at Large, 76, 78. The language above given Iii as the law now stands In the :allT: St. U. S. at I 711, parte Tatem, 1 Hughes, 688.