| OCR Text |
Show 414 APPENDIX. pondent was not bound to answer it, and his neglect or refusal to do so would not authorize his punishment for contempt. The first position which I shall t ake in considerinO' the question of jurisdiction, is that the courts of the United States have no power to award the "Tit of habeas CO?]JUS except such as is given to them by the acts of Congress. " Courts which originate in the common law possess a jurisdiction ·which must be regulated by the common law; but the courts which are created by written law, and whose jurisdiction is defined by written law, cannot transcend their jurisdiction. The power to award the ·writ by any of the courts of th.c United States must be given by written law." Ex parte, Swcwtout, 4 Crunch, 75. Ex pa'rte Ban·e, 2 Howard, 65. The power of the U nitcd States to issue writs of habeas CO?]JUS is derived either from the fourteenth section of the act of 24th September, 1789, or from the seventh section of the act of March 2, 1833. The section from the act of 178D provides that " all the courts of the United States may issue Wiits of sci?'e facias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not especially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. And either of the justices of the supreme court, a. well as the judges of the district courts, may grant writs of habeas, for the purpose of inquiry into the cause of commitment; but writs of ltabaas corpus shall in no case extend to prisoners in jail, unless they arc in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States, or arc committed for trial before some court of the same, or arc necessary to be brouo·ht into court to tcs tify " 'Th th · 5 · e seven section of the act of 2d March 1833 authorizes " . h . . ' ' Cit er of the. Justices of the supreme court, or judge of any district court of the Un't d St t · del. · I c a es, m a Itlon, to the authority already conferred ~y .l~w, to grant writs of habeas C01]Jus in all cases of a prisoner or prisoners m Jml or confinement, where he or they shall be committed or confined on or by authority of law, for any act done, or omitted to be done, in pursuance of a law of the United States, or any order, process, or decree of any judge or court thereof any thi'ng 'n ' t f C · standing." ' 1 an5 ac o ongress to the contrary notwith- Now, unless the writ of habeas cm·pus issued by the judge of the di strict court was necessary for the exercise of the juri diction of the said court, or wa~ to inquire into a commitmellt under, or by color of the authority of the Umtcd States, or to relieve some one imprisoned for an act d.onc, or omitted to be done, in pursuance of a law of the United States, the district court had no power to ibsuc it, and a commitment for contempt in refusing to A PPEXDIX. 41.3 answer it is an illegal imprisonment, which, under our habeas COJ]J?ls act, we are imperatively r egnirecl to set aside. It canno t be pretended that the writ was either asked for or granted to inquire into any commitment made under or by color of the authority of the United States, or to rcllcYe from imprisonment for an act done or omitted to be done in pursuance of a law of the United tatcs, and thcn'fore we may confine our inquiry solely to the question whether it was necessary for the cxer cl.;e of any jurisdiction given to the distric;t court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania. This brings us to the question of the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and more particularly that of the district court. And here, without desiring, or intending to discuss at large the nature and powers of the federal government, it is proper to repeat what has been so often said, and what has never been denied., that it is a. government of enumerated powers, delegated to it by the several States, or the people thereof, without capacity to enlarge or extend the powers so d.clega.ted anu enumerated, and that its courts of justice arc courts of limited jurisdiction, d.cririug their authority from the constitution of the United States, and the acts of Congress u nd.er the constitution. Let us see "·hat judicial power was given hy the people to the Federal goYcrnment, for that alone can be rightly exercised by its courts. "The judicial power" ( sayf:l the second section of the third article) "shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority, to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public mini. ters and consuls, to all case of admiralty and maritime juri~d.iction, to controversies to which the United State shall be a party, to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizen of another tate, bc~w~cn citizens of different States, between citizens of the same Sta.f c, clmmmg lands under grants of different States, anc.l between a State, or the citizen thereof and foreign States, citizens or subjects." ' . The amendments subsequently made to this artidc ha.Ye no bcanng u.pon the questw. n under cons1· a. orati.o n, nor I·S I' t nc CC"" ..,, .1 .y to e·x a' mine the Yan.o us acts of Congress conferring jurisdiction upon the courts of ~he. ~111 ~cd States, for no act of Congrc can 1u. c f ounc1 ex· t CI 1din0o' the JUnsdlCtl.O n beyond what is given by the constitution, so far as relates to the qucst10n we are now consider.m g. An d I· r sueh an act s bould be IJasscd it would. be in direct conflict with the tenth amended article of the constitution, which declares that "the powers not delegated. to the United States by the con- |
