Fred Fisher v. Colonel David Baker, Jr
| Decision Date | 03 December 1906 |
| Docket Number | No. 214,214 |
| Parties | FRED C. FISHER and Charles C. Cohn, on Behalf of Felix Barcelon, Plffs. in Err., v. COLONEL DAVID J. BAKER, JR., and Captain John Doe Thompson |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Frederic R. Coudert and Howard Thayer Kingsbury for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 174-176 intentionally omitted] Solicitor General Hoyt for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 176-178 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:
Application for the writ of habeas corpus was made to the supreme court of the Philippine Islands, August 2, 1905, on behalf of one Barcelon, seeking to be discharged from alleged illegal detention in the province of Batangas. An order to show cause was granted, returnable August 4, to which return was made, the cause heard, and the application denied on the ground that the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended, and that the action of the Philippine authorities in that regard was not open to judicial review.
Petition for the allowance of a writ of error from this court, dated October 19, and service of copy thereof acknowledged by respondents the same day, was filed January 3, 1906, and the writ of error thereupon allowed and issued on that day.
The second clause of § 9 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides: 'The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.'
The 7th paragraph of § 5 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat. at L. chap. 1369, pp. 691, 692), reads: 'That the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion, insurrection, or invasion, the public safety may require it; in either of which events the same may be suspended by the President, or by the governor, with the approval of the Philippine Commission, where-ever, during such period, the necessity for such suspension shall exist.'
The record discloses that on January 31, 1905, the Philippine Commission adopted the following resolution:
'Whereas certain organized bands of ladrones exist in the proviness of Cavite and Batangas, who are levying forced contributions upon the people, who frequently require them, under compulsion, to join their bands, and who kill or maim in the most barbarous manner those who fail to respond to their unlawful demands, and are therefore terrifying the law-abiding and inoffensive people of those provinces; and
'Whereas these bands have, in several instances, attacked police and constabulary detachments, and are in open insurrection against the constituted authorities; and
'Whereas it is believed that these bands have numerous agents and confederates living within the municipalities of the said provinces; and
'Whereas, because of the foregoing conditions, there exists a state of insecurity and terrorism among the people which makes it impossible in the ordinary way to conduct preliminary investigations before justices of the peace and other judicial officers:
'Now, therefore, be it resolved, 'That, the public safety requiring it, the civil governor is hereby authorized and requested to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in the provinces of Cavite and Batangas.'
Whereupon, on the same day, the civil governor issued the following proclamation:
'Whereas certain organized bands of ladrones exist in the provinces of Cavite and Batangas, who are levying forced contributions upon the people, who frequently require them, under compulsion, to join their bands, and who kill or maim in the most barbarous manner those who fail to respond to their unlawful demands, and are therefore terrifying the law-abiding and inoffensive people of those provinces; and
'Whereas these bands have, in several instances, attacked police and constabulary detachments, and are in open insurrection against the constituted authorities, and it is believed that the said bands have numerous agents and confederates living within the municipalities of the said provinces; and
'Whereas, because of the foregoing conditions, there exists a state of insecurity and terrorism among the people which makes it impossible in the ordinary way to conduct preliminary investigations before justices of the peace and other judicial officers:
'In the interest of the public safety, it is hereby ordered that the writ of habeas corpus is from this date suspended in the provinces of Cavite and Batangas.'
But we must take notice of the fact that on October 19, 1905, the civil governor issued a proclamation revoking that of January 31, 1905, as follows:
'Whereas the ladrone bands which, up to a recent date, infested the provinces of Cavite and Batangas, have been practically destroyed, and the members thereof killed or captured or have surrendered, so that the necessity for the continuance of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the aforesaid provinces, which was made necessary by the conditions therein prevailing on the 31st day of January last, no longer exists:
'Now, therefore, I, Luke E....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois
...We think this is a mistaken assumption. It is well settled that habeas corpus is a civil proceeding. Fisher v. Baker, 203 U.S. 174, 181, 27 S.Ct. 135, 136, 51 L.Ed. 142 (1906); Ex parte Tom Tong, 108 U.S. 556, 2 S.Ct. 871, 27 L.Ed. 826 (1883); see Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S 415, 418 n......
-
State v. Lee Lim
... ... nature. Fisher v. Baker , 203 U.S. 174, 27 ... S.Ct. 135, 51 L.Ed. 142, ... ...
-
Graham v. Johnson
...in an effort to refute the state's observation that habeas applications are a species of civil action, see Fisher v. Baker, 203 U.S. 174, 181, 27 S.Ct. 135, 51 L.Ed. 142 (1906) (observing that a federal habeas case is "a civil and not a criminal proceeding"), and that civil suits dismissed ......
-
Reasonover v. Washington, 4:96CV1477 JCH.
...Browder v. Dept. of Corrections of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257, 269, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (citing Fisher v. Baker, 203 U.S. 174, 181, 27 S.Ct. 135, 51 L.Ed. 142 (1906); Ex parte Tom Tong, 108 U.S. 556, 2 S.Ct. 871, 27 L.Ed. 826 (1883)). In Mitchell, the Supreme Court reaffirmed th......