Ex parte Tobias Watkins

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation28 U.S. 193,7 L.Ed. 650,3 Pet. 193
PartiesEx PARTE TOBIAS WATKINS
Decision Date01 January 1830

28 U.S. 193
3 Pet. 193
7 L.Ed. 650
Ex PARTE TOBIAS WATKINS.
January Term, 1830

Page 194

THIS case came before the court on a petition for a habeas corpus, on the relation of Tobias Watkins, setting forth that at May term 1829 of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, in the county of Washington, certain presentments were found against him; upon three of which trials were had, and verdicts passed against him; upon which judgments were pronounced, purporting to condemn him to the payment of certain pecuniary fines and costs, and certain terms of imprisonment for the supposed offences therein. For the nature and terms of the indictments, and of the convictions and judgments thereon, the petition referred to the same. Copies and exemplifications of the records of the proceedings were annexed to the petition.

The petition proceeded to state, that, immediately on the rendition of the judgments, and in the pretended pursuance and execution of the same, the petitioner was, on the 14th of August 1829, committed to the common gaol of Washington county, in which he has since been confined, under colour and pretence of the authority, force, and effect of the said indictments; that he is well advised by counsel that the said convictions and judgments are illegal and wholly void upon

Page 195

their faces, and give no valid authority or warrant whatever for his commitment and imprisonment; that the indictments do not, nor does any one of them charge or import any offence at common law whatever, cognizable in the course of criminal judicature, and especially no offence cognizable or punishable by the said circuit court; and that his imprisonment is wholly unjust, and without any lawful ground, warrant or authority whatever.

The petitioner prays the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, to be directed to the marshal of the district of Columbia, in whose custody, as keeper of the gaol of the district, the petitioner is, commanding him to bring the body of the petitioner before the court, with the cause of his commitment; and especially commanding him to return with the writ the record of the proceedings upon the indictments, with the judgments thereupon; and to certify whether the petitioner be not actually imprisoned by the supposed authority, and in virtue of the said judgment.

The first indictment referred to in the petition, charged the petitioner as fourth auditor of the treasury of the United States, and as such having assigned to him the keeping of the accounts of the receipts and expenditures of the public moneys of the United States in regard to the navy department; with having obtained for his private use the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars, the money of the United States, by means of a draft for that sum on the navy agent of the United States at New York, which draft was drawn by him in the city of Washington, in favour of C. S. Fowler, on the navy agent at New York, and negotiated in the city of Washington on the 16th of January 1828; the said sum of money having been by him represented to the secretary of the navy as required by the navy agent for the uses of the United States, and so represented in a requisition made to the navy agent for a warrant on the treasury of the United States for the amount of the draft, with other sums included in the requisition.

The second indictment charged the petitioner with having received from the navy agent of the United States at New York, the sum of three hundred dollars, money of the United

Page 196

States, by means of fraudulent misrepresentations made to the navy agent, contained in a letter addressed to him on the 8th of October 1827, in which it was falsely stated, that the said sum of three hundred dollars was required for the use of the United States; and that the same was so obtained from the navy agent, by a draft on him in favour of C. J. Fowler, by whom the money was paid to the petitioner, on his having negotiated the draft.

The third indictment charged the petitioner with having procured to be drawn from the treasury of the United States the sum of two thousand dollars, by means of a requisition from the secretary of the navy; a blank requisition left by that officer in his department having, on the representation of the petitioner that the same was required for the public service by the navy agent at Boston, been filled up for this purpose; and for which he drew and negotiated drafts in the city of Washington, at different times, in favour of C. J. Fowler, in different sums amounting to two thousand dollars, and appropriated the same to his own use.

Messrs Jones and Coxe moved for a rule on the United States, to show cause why a habeas corpus should not issue, and proposed that the argument should take place on the motion upon all the points involved in the case. Mr Berrien, attorney general, objected to an argument on the motion. He stated that he was prepared to go into the argument on the return of the rule, but was not willing to do so on the motion.

The counsel for the petitioner observed, that in Kearney's case, 7 Wheat. the argument took place on the motion; and, as in this case the petition brought up the indictments and the judgments of the circuit court, the whole matter was now fully before the court.

Mr Chief Justice Marshall said, that the counsel for the petitioner and the attorney general might arrange among themselves as they thought proper when the argument should come on, either on the motion or the return. This not having been done, the rule was warded returnable on the following motion day.

Page 197

On the return of the rule, Mr Coxe and Mr Jones for the petitioner contended, that no offence was charged in the indictments which was within the jurisdiction of the circuit court for the county of Washington, and therefore all the proceedings of that court were nullities and void.

1. All proceedings of a court beyond its jurisdiction are void. Wise vs. Withers, 3 Cranch, 331, 1 Peters's Condensed Rep. 552. Rose vs. Himely, 4 Cranch, 241, 268, 552. Doe vs. Harden, 1 Paine's Rep. 55, 58, 59.

2. In a case where a court acting beyond its jurisdiction has committed a party to prison, a habeas corpus is the proper remedy, and affords the means of trying the question. 3 Cranch, 448, 1 Peters's Condensed Rep. 594. Bollman vs. Swartwout, 4 Cranch, 75. Kearney's case, 7 Wheat. 38.

3. The writ does not issue of course, but the party must show that he is imprisoned by a court having no jurisdiction. 1 Chitty's Crim. Law, 124, 125. 7 Wheat. 88. A habeas corpus is a proper remedy for revising the proceedings of a court in a criminal case. 1 Chitty's Crim. Law, 180.

It was argued for the petitioner, that it has been decided in many cases, that a writ of habeas corpus may issue so as to make its action equivalent to that of a writ of error. 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 180.

The circuit court is a court of general criminal jurisdiction in cases within the local law, and within the law of Maryland. What is the effect of the clause of the act of congress establishing this court? It is to give it cognizance of 'all offences;' but this does not mean that extraordinary powers are given to make new offences, and to punish all acts deemed offences. Offences are the violations of known and established local laws. The statute means offences against the laws of the United States in their sovereignty, and against the local laws of the district.

For the purposes of this inquiry it is immaterial whether the circuit court is or is not of limited jurisdiction. However extended its jurisdiction may be, it has defined limits, and these restrain it.

Suppose the court should entertain jurisdiction of cases

Page 198

certainly not criminal, would not a decision in such a case be a nullity? As if on the face of an indictment an act which is of a civil nature should be made criminal. The court is limited to offences committed within its jurisdiction. Should it take cognizance of an act done in England, would not this court interfere?

It is admitted that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive, when the case is one properly submitted to the operation of that jurisdiction. But it is not sufficient to say that its jurisdiction is general; it should also appear it had jurisdiction of the offence charged. Cited Rose vs. Himely, 5 Cranch, 313. Griffith vs. Frazier, 8 Cranch, 9.

It is asked whether this court will look into any criminal case which has passed under the judgment of the circuit court. Suppose a sentence imposed not authorised by law; would not this court interfere by its writ of habeas corpus?

It is not contended that every excess of jurisdiction is within the principle claimed. There is a difference between a rule which is reasonable, and that which goes into extravagance. It may not be defined, but it can be felt; and this is a case where this rule can apply. The position that the decision of an inferior court of the United States in a criminal case cannot be inquired into unless there is an appellate jurisdiction in such cases, goes too far; and runs into the argumentum in absurdum.

In all the cases which have come before this court, in which a writ of habeas corpus has been applied for, the decision has been in favour of the jurisdiction. There has been enough shown here in this preliminary question to authorise the writ, as the only inquiry is, whether the judgment of the circuit court is conclusive upon all the matters before the court.

The counsel for the petitioner proceeded to argue at large upon authorities that the offences charged in the indictments were not cognizable in the circuit court. As this point was not noticed in the opinion of the court, the argument is omitted. They cited 7 Cranch, 32. 1 Wheat. 415. 1 Gall.

Page 199

488. 2 East, 814. 2 Maule and Selw. 378. 4 Wheat. 405, 424, 430, 410, 416, 427. 1 Cranch, 164.

The attorney general denied that it was competent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
337 practice notes
  • Stone v. Powell Wolff v. Rice, Nos. 74-1055
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1976
    ...with the common law and limited it to an inquiry as to the jurisdiction of the sentencing tribunal. See, e. g., Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 7 L.Ed. 650 (1830) (Marshall, C. J.). In 1867 the writ was extended to state prisoners. Act of Feb. 5, 1867, c. 28, § 1, 14 Stat. 385. Under the 1867......
  • Withrow v. Williams, No. 91-1030
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 21, 1993
    ...Court has frequently rested its habeas decisions on equitable principles. In one of the earliest federal habeas cases, Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 201, 7 L.Ed. 650 (1830), Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "No doubt exists respecting the power [of the Court to issue the writ]; the question is......
  • State ex rel. Knox v. Speakes, 25852
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1926
    ...U.S. 327, 38 L.Ed. 463; Kennedy v. Bank of Georgia, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 586, 612, 12 L.Ed. 1209; Ex parte Watkins, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 193, 204, 7 L.Ed. 650. See also Nugent v. State, 18 Ala. 524. This law is unconstitutional and void. Argued orally by W. W. Simmons and A. B. Sparkman, for appell......
  • In re Grantham, No. 82194-1.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • February 4, 2010
    ...if the court has general jurisdiction of the subject, although it should be erroneous." Ex parte Watkins, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 193, 203, 7 L.Ed. 650 (1830). Scholars have cast significant doubt on that limitation on the scope of habeas. See, e.g., BADSHAH K. MIAN, AMERICAN HABEAS CORPUS: LAW, H......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
336 cases
  • Stone v. Powell Wolff v. Rice, Nos. 74-1055
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1976
    ...with the common law and limited it to an inquiry as to the jurisdiction of the sentencing tribunal. See, e. g., Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 7 L.Ed. 650 (1830) (Marshall, C. J.). In 1867 the writ was extended to state prisoners. Act of Feb. 5, 1867, c. 28, § 1, 14 Stat. 385. Under the 1867......
  • Withrow v. Williams, No. 91-1030
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 21, 1993
    ...Court has frequently rested its habeas decisions on equitable principles. In one of the earliest federal habeas cases, Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet. 193, 201, 7 L.Ed. 650 (1830), Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "No doubt exists respecting the power [of the Court to issue the writ]; the question is......
  • State ex rel. Knox v. Speakes, 25852
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1926
    ...U.S. 327, 38 L.Ed. 463; Kennedy v. Bank of Georgia, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 586, 612, 12 L.Ed. 1209; Ex parte Watkins, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 193, 204, 7 L.Ed. 650. See also Nugent v. State, 18 Ala. 524. This law is unconstitutional and void. Argued orally by W. W. Simmons and A. B. Sparkman, for appell......
  • In re Grantham, No. 82194-1.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • February 4, 2010
    ...if the court has general jurisdiction of the subject, although it should be erroneous." Ex parte Watkins, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 193, 203, 7 L.Ed. 650 (1830). Scholars have cast significant doubt on that limitation on the scope of habeas. See, e.g., BADSHAH K. MIAN, AMERICAN HABEAS CORPUS: LAW, H......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Who Has the Body? The Paths to Habeas Corpus Reform
    • United States
    • Prison Journal, The Nbr. 84-3, September 2004
    • September 1, 2004
    ...game. California Law Review, 79, 613-864. Ex parte Kearney, 20 U.S. 38 (1822). Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 (1886). Ex parte Watkins, 28 U.S. 193 Faust, R., Rubenstein, T., & Yackle, L. (1990/1991). The great writ in action: Empirical light on the federal habeas corpus debate. New York Uni......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT