United States ex rel Troiani v. Heyburn
| Decision Date | 13 October 1917 |
| Docket Number | 9,10. |
| Citation | 245 F. 360 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. TROIANI v. HEYBURN, Sheriff, et al. UNITED STATES ex rel. KILINSKY v. SWIFT et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Habeas Corpus 16
Two proceedings in habeas corpus-- one, on the relation of Giovanni Troiani against John E. Heyburn, Sheriff of Delaware County, and another; the other, on the relation of Abraham Kilinsky against Edward Swift and others, members of Local Board for Division No. 8, City of Philadelphia. On petitions for allowance of writs. Allowance denied.
John N Landberg, Joseph W. Henderson, and Francis Rawle, all of Philadelphia, for petitioners.
T. Henry Walnut, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Francis Fisher Kane. U.S Atty., both of Philadelphia, opposed.
The technical question raised is whether a writ of habeas corpus should of right issue. The real question is when and how far the courts should invade the domain of military authority. This country has been found and adjudged to be in a state of war. The national defense is an absolute necessity of our existence. The people of the United States have prepared themselves for such a situation by confiding to Congress the power to declare war and to support and maintain armies for the national defense. This is necessarily a master power, to be exercised without the hampering interference of any one. The call of men to the colors is within, and necessarily within, the exercise of this power. To whom the call goes out, and who is to make an answering response, are matters germane to, and indeed necessarily involved in, the exercise of the war-making power. Questions which necessarily arise or may be expected to arise, must be determined in some way and by some tribunal. The war-making power may therefore provide the required system and constitute the needed tribunals. It is not only lawful, but fitting, that they should be military tribunals.
Congress has constituted such tribunals for the war in which our people are now engaged. The lawful and independent jurisdiction which belongs to other tribunals belongs to them. To this jurisdiction all must submit, and all who are well disposed to our country will willingly submit. Upon whom of those within the prescribed age limits, who have registered, the duty of military service has been imposed because of their being citizens or denizens who have declared their intention to become citizens; who are to be excluded from the privilege of service, because alien enemies; who are exempt from service, because of the existence of any of the prescribed reasons for exemption; who are ill fitted for the performance of military service; and who have responsibilities and duties elsewhere so imperative and urgent as to prevent active military service-- are all matters of which these tribunals have jurisdiction. They, indeed, constitute in an emphatic sense the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. COMMANDING OFFICER, ETC.
...had to the courts through quest of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. United States v. Grieme, 3 Cir., 128 F.2d 811, 814; United States ex rel. Troiani v. Heyburn, D.C.Pa., 245 F. 360; United States v. Walden, D.C.Ga., 56 F.Supp. 777; Biron v. Collins, 5 Cir., 145 F.2d 758, reversing D.C., 56 F.Sup......
-
United States v. Powell
...246 F. 54; United States ex rel. Koopowitz v. Finley, supra D.C., 245 F. 871; Ex parte Hutflis, supra D.C., 245 F. 798; United States ex rel. Troiani v. Heyburn, supra D.C., 245 F. 360; Summertime v. Local Board, Div. No. 10, supra D.C., 248 F. 832; Ex parte Beck (D.C.Mont.) 245 F. 967. Suc......
-
Local Draft Board No. 1 v. Connors
...See Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366, 38 S.Ct. 159, 62 L.Ed. 349, L.R.A.1918C, 361, Ann.Cas.1918B, 856. United States ex rel. Troiani v. Heyburn, D. C., 245 F. 360, 361, was a case in which the moving party had been inducted into the military service. Although the subject matter und......
-
United States v. Baird, Misc. No. 544.
...v. Finley, supra (D.C., 245 F. 871); (Ex parte) Hutflis, supra (D.C., 245 F. 798); United States ex rel. Troiani v. Heyburn, supra (D.C. 245 F. 360); Summertime v. Local Board, Div. No. 10, supra (D.C., 248 F. 832); Ex parte Beck (D.C.Mont.) 245 F. 967. Such conclusion is the necessary resu......