A judgment of the district court refusing the writ of habeas
corpus is appealable directly to this Court under § 238 of the
Judicial Code if the petition raises constitutional or treaty
questions.
A judgment of the circuit court of appeals affirming a judgment
of the district court refusing habeas corps is not appealable to
this Court under § 241 of the Judicial Code on the ground that
constitutional and treaty questions are involved, since no
pecuniary value is in controversy.
The provision made by Rev.Stats., § 764, as amended by the Act
of March 3, 1885, c. 353, 23 Stat. 437, for review in this Court of
the appellate judgments of the circuit courts in habeas corpus
cases was necessarily repealed by the Judiciary Act of March 3,
1891 (
see §§ 4, 5, 6, and 14), and § 289 of the Judicial
Code, abolishing the Circuit Courts.
Appeal to review 232 F. 819 dismissed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Memorandum opinion by MR. JUSTICE PITNEY, by direction of the
Court.
Appellant, being in the custody of the United States marshal for
the District of Massachusetts under an
Page 243 U. S. 248
indictment found in that district for a violation of the Act of
May 30, 1908, c.. 234, 35 Stat. 554, now §§ 232-235 of the Criminal
Code (c. 321, 35 Stat. 1088, 1134), in unlawfully transporting
explosives from New York through Massachusetts to Vanceboro, Maine,
petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus upon the
ground that the order of commitment was in violation of his rights
under the Constitution and laws of the United States and existing
treaties between the United States and the German Empire and the
Kingdom of Prussia, for that (among other reasons) appellant is an
officer of the army of the German Empire; that a state of war,
recognized by the President of the United States in an official
proclamation, exists between Great Britain and Germany; that
appellant is accused of destroying a part of the international
bridge in the township of McAdam, Province of New Brunswick, and
Dominion of Canada; that the charge of carrying explosives
illegally, upon which he is held in custody, is, if true,
inseparably connected with the destruction of that bridge, and
that
"he is a subject and citizen of the Empire of Germany and
domiciled therein, and is being held in custody for the aforesaid
act, which was done under his right, title, authority, privilege,
protection, and exemption claimed under his commission as said
officer."
After a hearing, the district court refused the writ of habeas
corpus and dismissed the petition, 223 F. 549, and an appeal to the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit resulted in an
affirmance of the judgment, 232 F. 819. An appeal from the judgment
of affirmance to this Court was then allowed.
There is a motion to dismiss the appeal, and this must be
granted. Assuming, as we do, that the petition for habeas corpus
raised questions involving the application of the Constitution of
the United States or the construction of a treaty made under its
authority, appellant might
Page 243 U. S. 249
have taken a direct appeal from the district court to this Court
under § 238, Judicial Code, Act of March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat.
1087, 1157.
Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.
S. 309;
Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U. S.
6;
Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U.
S. 511. Having appealed to the circuit court of appeals,
he cannot bring his case here except under some provision of law
allowing an appeal from that court to this. Appeals of this
character are regulated by § 241, Judicial Code, 36 Stat. 1157, and
are confined to cases "where the matter in controversy shall exceed
one thousand dollars, besides costs." It long has been settled that
the jurisdiction conferred by Congress upon any court of the United
States in a case where the matter in controversy exceeds a certain
sum of money does not include cases where the rights of the parties
are incapable of being valued in money, and therefore excludes
habeas corpus cases.
Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U.
S. 487,
115 U. S. 498;
Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S.
47,
144 U. S. 58;
Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82,
146 U. S. 88;
Whitney v. Dick, 202 U. S. 132,
202 U. S. 135;
Healy v. Backus, 241 U. S. 655.
Appellant seeks to sustain his appeal under §§ 763 and 764 of
the Revised Statutes.
* They gave a
right of
Page 243 U. S. 250
appeal from the district court to the circuit court in two
classes of habeas corpus cases, and an appeal from the circuit
court to this Court in cases of a class that includes the present
case. Section 764 was amended by Act of March 3, 1885, c. 353, 23
Stat. 437, by extending the right of appeal from the circuit courts
to this Court so as to include the remaining cases described in the
preceding section. But, by § 4 of the Act of March 3, 1891,
establishing circuit courts of appeals, 26 Stat. 827, all appellate
jurisdiction was taken from the circuit courts, and by §§ 5 and 6
it was distributed between this Court and the circuit courts of
appeals. By § 14, all acts and parts of acts relating to appeals or
writs of error, inconsistent with the provisions for review in §§ 5
and 6, were repealed. Section 5 preserved a direct appeal from the
district court to this Court in cases involving the construction or
application of the Constitution of the United States or the
validity or construction of any treaty made under its authority. In
Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82,
146 U. S. 88, it
was pointed out that the effect of this was that appeals from the
decrees of the circuit court on habeas corpus could no longer be
taken to this Court except in cases of the class mentioned in the
fifth section of that act. And it was so held in
In re
Lennon, 150 U. S. 393,
150 U. S.
399.
Even were it otherwise, an appeal from the circuit court to this
Court was not the same as an appeal from the circuit court of
appeals to this Court. And the abolishment of the circuit courts by
§ 289, Jud. Code, removed the last vestige of authority for an
appeal to this Court under § 764, Rev.Stats.
Appeal dismissed.
*
"Sec. 763. From the final decision of any court, justice, or
judge inferior to the circuit court, upon an application for a writ
of habeas corpus or upon such writ when issued, an appeal may be
taken to the circuit court for the district in which the cause is
heard:"
"1. In the case of any person alleged to be restrained of his
liberty in violation of the Constitution, or of any law or treaty
of the United States."
"2. In the case of any prisoner who, being a subject or citizen
of a foreign state, and domiciled therein, is committed or
confined, or in custody by or under the authority or law of the
United States, or of any state, or process founded thereon, for or
on account of any act done or omitted under any alleged right,
title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption, set up or
claimed under the commission, order, or sanction of any foreign
state or sovereignty the validity and effect whereof depend upon
the law of nations, or under color thereof."
"Sec. 764. From the final decision of such circuit court, an
appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court in the cases described in
the last clause of the preceding section."