Ex parte Moran

• Citation: 144 F. 594
• Decision Date: 01 March 1906
• Docket Number: 59.
• Parties: Ex parte MORAN.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

144 F. 594

Ex parte MORAN.

No. 59.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 1, 1906

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The power of the Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus except in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers or consuls, and in those in which a state is a party, is a part of its appellate jurisdiction, which was conferred upon it by that part of section 14 of the judiciary act of 1789 (Act Sept. 24, 1789, c. 20, 1 Stat. 81) now embodied in section 716 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p 580.)

By the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, Sec. 12, 26 Stat. 826 (U.S Comp. St. 1901, p. 553) the Circuit Courts of Appeals were invested with the same power to issue writs of habeas corpus within their respective territorial appellate jurisdictions which the Supreme Court possessed as a part of its appellate jurisdiction within its territorial jurisdiction.

The power of the Supreme Court and of the Circuit Courts of Appeals to issue writs of habeas corpus is a part of their appellate jurisdiction, which is distinct and separate from their power to review by writs of error or by appeals. It extends to cases of imprisonment by the judgments or orders of inferior courts within their respective territorial appellate jurisdictions when the final judgments or the orders in the specific cases are not reviewable in those courts by writs of error or by appeals, as well as to the cases in which they are so reviewable.

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the final decisions of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in certain classes of cases by writs of error or by appeals. This court has like jurisdiction in other and more numerous cases. Neither court has this power in cases of the conviction of capital crimes. Ut since each of these courts has appellate jurisdiction over the Supreme Court of Oklahoma and hence over the subordinate courts within its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of the United States and this court each has the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to inquire into the power of any court in Oklahoma Territory to imprison a person convicted of a capital crime.

Where, between the time of the commission of an offense and the time of the indictment and trial for it, the place of its commission becomes a part of a new or different county or district, the court of the county in which the place is situated at the time of the indictment and trial has jurisdiction to hear and try the charge of the commission of the offense.

The review of a judgment of conviction and imprisonment by writ of habeas corpus is limited to the questions, had the court which rendered the judgment jurisdiction of its subject-matter and of the prisoner convicted? and did that court in the course of the procedure which resulted in the judgment exceed its jurisdiction?

The jurisdiction of a question is the lawful power to enter upon a consideration of, and to decide it. It is not limited to authority to render a correct decision, but necessarily includes the power to decide wrong as well as right.

The legislatures of the territories have plenary authority to prescribe the methods of practice and procedure, the way of selecting grand and petit jurors and their qualifications, in the territorial courts, and, unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in the courts of the United States in the territories also.

Laws enacted by the Legislatures of the territories are not laws of the United States.

The selection of grand jurors in a way not authorized by a statute of a territory, the acceptance of disqualified persons as grand jurors, the receipt of an indictment found by such jurors, and the trial and conviction of a prisoner upon it by a territorial court, are decisions of questions within its jurisdiction, and though erroneous, are not violative of the Constitution of the United States and do not entitle the prisoner to a discharge upon a writ of habeas corpus. That writ may not perform the office of a writ of error.

F. E. Riddle, for petitioner.

P. C. Simons, Atty. Gen., and S. M. Cunningham, for respondent.

Before SANBORN, HOOK, and ADAMS, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN Circuit Judge.

George Moran seeks a discharge from confinement in the penitentiary at Lansing, in the state of Kansas, where he is held by the Warden under a judgment of conviction of murder and a sentence of imprisonment rendered by the district court of Comanche county, in the territory of Oklahoma, which was affirmed upon a writ of error by the Supreme Court of that territory. Moran v. Territory (Okl.) 78 P. 111. The averments of his petition are that the facts are such that the court of Comanche county had no jurisdiction (1) to try the petitioner for the crime of murder; (2) to conduct the trial in the method adopted; or (3) to convict or sentence the petitioner, and that the Supreme Court of Oklahoma had no lawful power to affirm the judgment against him.

The question which first challenges the attention of this court is whether or not it has jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus to determine the power of a court in the territory of Oklahoma to imprison a person convicted of a capital crime. The act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, Sec. 12, 26 Stat. 826 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 553) conferred upon the Circuit Court of Appeals the powers specified in section 716 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St.1901, p. 580). That section reads in this way:

'The Supreme Court and the circuit and district courts shall have power to issue writs of scire facias. They shall also have power to issue all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.'

This section is a part of the judiciary act of 1789 (Act Sept. 24, 1789, c. 20, Sec. 14, 1 Stat. 81) and while subsequent legislation has made and repealed grants of additional power, and section 688 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 565) regarding writs of mandamus and section 752 et seq. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 592) relating to writs of habeas corpus have been extracted from or added to this legislation, the power of the Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus and writs of mandamus was originally conferred by, and is still derived form that portion of the act of 1789 which is now embodied in this section 716. It has been settled by repeated decisions of the Supreme Court that this power is a part of its appellate, and not of its original jurisdiction, except in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers or consuls, and those in which a state is a party. Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75, 100, 2 L.Ed. 554; Ex parte Yerger, 75 U.S. 85, 98, 19 L.Ed. 332; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 2 L.Ed. 60; Bath County v. Amy, 13 Wall. 244, 249, 20 L.Ed. 539; Kendall v. U.S., 12 Pet. 622, 9 L.Ed. 1181; Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Morris, 66 C.C.A. 62, 132 F. 952, 67 L.R.A. 761. The natural construction of the grant by the act of 1891 to the Circuit Courts of Appeals of the same power to issue writs necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction, which had been granted to the Supreme Court by this section, is that the extent and limits of this power within the respective territorial jurisdictions of the Supreme Court and of the Courts of Appeals are the same and that they are those which had been fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered before the act of 1891 was passed. In the interpretation of this legislation the importance of its subject and the method of its treatment by the Congress and the courts should not be disregarded. Chief Justice Chase said:

'The great and leading intent of the Constitution and the law must be kept constantly in view upon the examination of every question of construction. That intent, in respect to the writ of habeas corpus, is manifest. It is that every citizen may be protected by judicial action from unlawful imprisonment. ' Ex parte Yerger, 75 U.S. 101, 19 L.Ed. 332.

In dignity, in power and in the finality and effect of their adjudications the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals are inferior to the Supreme Court of the United States alone in this country. The grant of the power to issue the writ of habeas corpus to these courts is conducive to a wise and speedy administration of justice. It prevents confusing and conflicting opinions of judges of inferior courts and tends to secure uniformity and certainty in the administration of the law of personal liberty. It enables those who deem themselves deprived of their freedom in violation of their rights to secure speedy relief, if they are entitled thereto without the vexatious delay and expense of an application to a subordinate court or judge and an appeal to this court, before its opinion can be obtained. By the act of 1891 Congress conferred upon these courts the power to issue writs of mandamus and other writs which the Supreme Court was empowered to issue under section 716. The writ of habeas corpus was the most important and most beneficent in its effect of all those which the Supreme Court had been authorized to issue. It is the great prerogative writ guarantied to our English ancestors by the habeas corpus act of May 27, 1679 (3 British Statutes at Large, 397), brought to this country by the colonists, and secured to the citizen by our Constitution, save when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require its suspension. Article 1, Sec. 9, cl. 2. It is the best defense and the most efficient security of personal liberty. The power to issue this writ had been granted to the Supreme Court, to the Circuit and Districts Courts of the United States and to the justices and judges who compose them, when the Circuit...