*1 HECHT. CRAIG of the Case. Statement the under them assuming possession for time arrived netted on terms sublet land which readily defendants year latter $384.35 in in 1917 and $890.40 them drought. of pronounced one being error. on Judgment reversed writ of dismissed. Writ certiorari MARSHAL UNITED STATES HECHT, CRAIG NEW THE DISTRICT OF FOR SOUTHERN YORK. POR THE OP APPEALS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
CERTIORARI SECOND CIRCUIT. 19, 1923. Argued 1923. Decided November
No. 82. October grant writ of such, power has judge, A circuit 1. .as corpus. 271. P. habeas discharging corpus, in habeas made at A final order 2. by designation .by exercising a circuit chambers judge, by Court, or a district on District ^viewable Appeals. P. 274. by Circuit Court of juris- contempt proceeding District ordinary Court has In an established an within whether the evidence offense diction to decide guilty charged, and respondent was and whether the statute imprisonment by appeal, sentencing him to is reviewable its order corpus, which cannot be used as for habeas a substitute exceptional circumstances. appeal, the absence P. 277. 138, affirmed. Fed. a judgment Ap- of the Circuit Court of Certiorari an order discharged reversing peals from custody under a Craig, commitment petitioner, in a contempt the District Court proceeding. issued discharge judge, order made as- that, Court, to the District who directed it be signed in that court. recorded Mooney,
M-r. L. whom P. George Edmund with Mr. Nicholson, Roioe, T. Mr. Charles Mr. Frank I. Tierney B.
Argument for Petitioner. and Mr. Russell Lord Tarbox brief, were on the petitioner. *2 I. The beyond district court be- jurisdiction, acted its “ petitioner’s cause act was not misbehavior,” did and “ ”
not, not, and could obstruct the of administration justice.
II. judge The'circuit had to issue writ the corpus. of habeas The mere fact merged that a court is not'deprive judge, does the whose of continues, office still jurisdictional qua any power vested in him, judge. By the Corpus 1867,14 385, Habeas Act of Stat. authority the “ to issue the writ was vested the several courts of the justices United States and the several and such judges of courts within their respective jurisdictions,” sub and on the of sequently, appointment circuit judges, the of April 10, 1869, 44, Act 16 Stat. and the still later codification in the Statutes, Revised the “ issue the writ vested in Supreme the the Court and courts,” and Rev. Stats., circuit district 751, and § “ id., several justices judges the and of said courts,” the 754, 755, and again 757, 758, the 760-763, § §§ jurisdictional of justices judges and is repeated. justices judges These and 'are described the Revised “ the justices Statutes as several judges and of the said “ courts,” they but since were fact Justices of ” “ “ Court,” judges and circuit and Supreme district way this but a of judges,” describing short the officers whom jurisdictional authority. was vested the The read, in the might and, ordinary statute as well have “ vernacular, have read the of would Justices the Supreme or Court, judges judges,” and the district circuit “ judge,” as in United States Chinese Exclusion § “ States,” judge 1014, of of the United Act as Stats., meaning have had the Rev. would same actually employed. The .of object purpose words get of the Judicial Code were to applicable provisions
CRAIG v. HECHT. Argument for Petitioner. courts, court officers and superfluous records, rid of not jurisdictional power judges. circumscribe Whitney Dick, 202 S. 132, distinguished. jurisdictional powers
The of the court and those of the distinct, Clarke, iUnited are States v. Gall. 497. judge a The discharge person reluctance committed Hale, In jurisdiction, ^e Fed. by judge coordinate would not in the apply degree same to a reexamining act of a judge. district other judicial appropriate power,” Tracy, sources are Justices of the Supreme and the Court itself, Court which should be Supreme relieved of such possible. whenever applications has been policy United States in the direc- extending abridging advantages tion of *3 of corpus. habeas The Constitution provides the writ “ of the privilege the writ . . shall be sus- not 2. Milligan, 4 parte Ex Wall. This pended.” policy is Congress the acts of in evidenced conferring further Judiciary Act September jurisdiction. 24, 1789, § .wide Bollman, 2, March 75; Cr. Act parte 1833, 7, Ex 14; § February 5, Act 634; Corpus 1867, Habeas Stat. Stat. McCardle, 6 318; Dick, Whitney Wall. judges When the circuit' ap- were 1869, supra, óf there the. Act was conferred under pointed of Court Justices powers Supreme of them all upon circuits, one which respective their within .the in- corpus, always habeas issue writs power Justice. The cir- Supreme Court in the office hered to issue this writ power baptism received judges cuit and this power,.did their moment appointment; at the of a court. panoply from the or spring originate appointment 1869, providing Act of Rev. in substance reenacted judges, circuit transposed 1867 was Act of Corpus The Habeas Stats. 71308° —24-17
Argument for Petitioner.
263 TJ.S.
751, 752,
into
Rev. Stats. This revision of the lan-
§§
of the
guage
Act,
Habeas Corpus
any apparent
without
effect,
intention to change
brought
its
about no substan-
tial
change
law,
so that
specification
“
several courts of the United States as
Court
Supreme
”
and the circuit court and district courts meant substan-
tially v.hat it did in
.the first
the Habeas
place
Corpus
“
Act, namely, that
was conferred
sev-
justices
eral
judges
of the said cú.
’’s,” wit, the
and the
Supreme
Court*.„
Court
District
as expanded'by
the Act of 1869, appointing circuit
judges and giving
the same
within their
thqm
power,
jurisdiction,
as
Supreme Court
There never
Judges.
has been an ex-
press change in the Habeas Corpus
Act of
except
its
the Revised Statutes.
revision
remain
provisions
exactly
they
were.
“an elementary
It is
rule that a special
particular
statutory provision
affording
remedy for particular and
cases is not
specific
repealed by a general law unless the
or the
repeal
express
implication to that end be irre-
States,
Ex parte
sistible.”
United
A very material consideration, we ..submit, is that when judges circuit were created no new court was created— already circuit court was in existence. As did not judges origin derive their from a court, it is hard *4 thej to see how lose any could of their powers, as judges, or by merger the abolition the court in which they usually sat. holding the lower court inis, effect, that by the or
abolition merger of the circuit court, the circuit judges were shorn all of their powers nothing was left to — them their except bare they titles —and that were re- with the power, clothed with the power, to sit
CRAIG v. HECHT. Argument for Petitioner. know, of the Circuit Courts of Appeals. on the bench We however, they sit retained under the States, supra; Act, United and un- Expedition Act of Fong the Chinese Exclusion 1892. 6. Yue § der States, 149 Ting They compre- v. United 698. are “ justice the or category any- judge within hended ” in Stats., Rev. the relating'to the United States § persons or bail of accused of crime. holding arrest designation, injunctions, They grant without may, also or cases the district restraining orders pending (Jud. 264) Code, and, courts of their circuits § 'act President, judge the the designation by Court As circuit Code, Appeals. of Customs Jud. § as judges, under the judges powers retained several these notwithstanding aboli- them, separate conferring acts Code, by the Judicial of the circuit courts merger tion or Code, Judicial were, it they how be said that can Habeas separate conferred power shorn of the writ; great to issue Act, unrepealed, Corpus covering over instances exercised numberless they had century? half a in dispensing assumption a violent
It would be to strip intended court, Congress machinery of with the espe- inherent powers, their own judges thereof of prevent to be construed to -he act was not cially, where in the' serving court or holding district any judge author-, for and court, otherwise, as provided commerce Code, Jud. 1Í8. The of this Act.” ized in other sections well judge exampled a circuit exercise of this Fitzger- Carper court of case before this leading ald; 121 U. S. Circuit Mantón was the present case, Judge regu-
In'the holding, chambers larly acting judge part dis- court, designation under when the writ trict was issued. our dirty He whom was to go .before he whose business it using the word was— in its issue the writ. proper sense—to
Argument for Petitioner. to- O CO But, though point thus of designated, jurisdic- tion and of a circuit judgé’to issue a writ of corpus is necessarily involved, only by a holding that circuit judge jurisdiction had no such or that power, and the order was an court, order the district did court below assert to hear and decide the appeal, notwithstanding to petitioner’s motion dismiss the appeal.
(cid:127) III.
In issuing
writ,
the circuit
judge,
addition
powers
to his
as such, was exercising the
powers
a dis-
trict
judge,
designation.
under
States,
United
It will be Code, observed Jud. provides for § designation of the judge, following circuit but the section judge does not limit designated so holding court; all provides that the acts' and proceedings . . by him, or before pursuance such provi- sions, shall have the same effect and validity as if done or before the judge district said district.” The designation in this lines follows the of the statute. case
A lay circuit no judge can more his aside title and powers of circuit than he judge stripped could of them; a always judge. v. he circuit McCarron People, N. Y. .74. n Even if this Court shall a judge hold that has no power, such, as a grant corpus, may writ of habeas he have the power, Stats., under Rev. 752 whenever he is a court. Where com- Congress district has judicial mitted a tribunal, he functions own inherent through his power through or behalf of the court he is a on member. Fitzger- Duett, 576; Carper States v. v. United ald, supra.
IY. lay The decisions uniform that are order of Appeals judge; Circuit Court from an CRAIG HECHT. Argument for Petitioner. by appeal court be reviewed a¡ might order Lennon, Carper In re Fitzgerald, supra;
writ of error. *6 Lam- James, 685; U. S. 393; McKnight 150 U. 155 S. v. Jacobi, Fed. Barrett, Ex 104 697; parte v. 157 U. S. bert 172 U. 148. 681; Wadley, Harkrader v. S. jurisdiction, by V. direct ap- This Court had exclusive which peal, discharging petitioner, review order had that the beén de- based finding of prived liberty power, involving of his an excess by and of the Constitution. application construction Ap- of jurisdiction the Circuit Court of assumption intervention of this warrants Court. peals and-requires Raton, 249 v. Code, 238; Raton Water Works Co. Jud. § S. and other cases. 552, U. had no Appeals
VI. If the Circuit Court its determination judge, the order of a circuit to review question whether reversed regardless should be of its powers, regardless, acted excess district court remedy, corpus proper of whether habeas also, reviewed questions appropriate to be leaving those y. Chicago Title Trust & First Bank National procedure. 280. Co., 198 U. S. and effective rem- proper was the
VII. Habeas
the com-
or lack
for excess
edy
parte Hudgings, 249
contempt. Ex
mitment for asserted
Sachs,
1; Cuyler
U. S.
v.
190
S.
In re Watts
378;
U.
Reese,
Co.,
95;
131
In re
Fed.
98
R. R.
Atlantic N. C.
&
We
concede that
the writ of
corpus,
may
not be
as an
employed
writ of
anticipatory
error, such as
Henkel,
Henry
was discountenanced in
235 U.
S.
McCarthy,
Rumely
and similar cases.
generally
procedure
But
rule
which such cases
*7
to attack
quite
right
by
stand is
beside the
writ for lack
Parks,
of power.
parte
or excess
Ex
93
jurisdiction
parte Yarbrough,
Ex
110 Ul
Ex
18;
651;
S.
U. S.
Siebold,
375;
100 U. S.
United States
parte
Pridgeon,
Lange,
Ex
18
48;
parte
Wall.
Ex
163;
parte
Even one of jurisdiction, broadly look into is con- corpus can may that the court look into the the cases show sidered, based, was to the' extent the conviction which facts of the court which as- jurisdiction affect they Mayfield, In adjudication. re make to’ sumed Petitioner, 131 280. U. S. Cuddy, 107; U. S. to the form of raised the writ were objections The
IX. the circuit act. to oust unavailing Beck, A. with whom Mr. General Mr. Solicitor Alfred Attorney General, to- the Assistant Wheat, Special respondent. for brief, on the district rendered of conviction judgment the. The
I. writ of bn until reversed final and conclusive court error..
CRAIG HECHT. Argument Respondent. for The court had of the person of the offender and of offense, and the sentence imposed was within n its both inherent and as power, confirmed the statute. parte Robinson, Debs, Ex 505; 19 Wall. In re 158 U. S. 565; States, Newspaper Toledo Co. v. United 247 U. S. 402. authority Jud. Code, clearly conferred § of jurisdiction the offense. No issue
embraced is left. of law and petitioner urged certain issues fact as one of affecting jurisdiction, every but these was Court, judg- to this as the on open review final unquestionably a ment conviction was decision. Co., 194 128; Bessette v. U. S. Code, Conkey Jud. the trial court’s Assuming determination of questions was none every erroneous, one of -these of them scope corpus. would -be within Ex ' 193; Dyche, Riddle v. 262 U. Watkins, 3 Pet. S. 333. matters before Mantón litigated Judge II. The did court tried and involve not which the proceedings amounted to petitioner, sentenced an appeal the merits was the on mere review remedy. proper findings that the the trial court may is
The law attacked-, nor can the record be collaterally, examined warranting there evidence conviction. to see whether parte Carll, McGourin, 442; Harlan v. Debs, Matter In re U: S. 521- Gregory, 219 L. S. *8 may be used as corpus habeas
III. The writ on corpus The court habeas for an substitute appeal. Glasgow Moyer, questions. v. jurisdictional is limited parte Ex Wat- Gregory, supra; Matter 420; 225 U. S. Parks, 18; Harlan U. S. Ex kins, 193'; ,parte 3 Pet. 93. McGourin, supra. corpus,-the judgment, on discharge warrant To merely be not based, must the commitment Argument Respondent. for erroneous, but absolutely void.’ This proposition ex- cludes from any error, consideration however vital or prejudicial may it be remedy deemed. The for error is appeal.' proposition cases on this are so-varied and so stated to leave no strongly doubt their pur- Watkins, parte or Ex port 193; parte effect. Pet. Ex Parks, 18; parte Yarbrough, 651; Ú. S. Ex U. S. Ex parte Spencer, Siebold, Ex parte '’ U. S. 371. it may
While
be admitted that
to some
extent
con-
generis,
sui
case is
nevertheless it is
tempt
governed by
rules
general
applicable
appeals
writs
error.
the method of review
provided
Habeas
is not
any
Kearney,
class
cases.
contempt cases
The case contentions of the' -accepted Mantón Judge an He innocuous placed interpretation in two respects. contempt the basis of the which was upon the letter nothing pending he decided that there was charge, and is, letter was That he published. sub' when the judice Mayer’s findings of Judge fact, made con- reversed sufficiency But of the evidence trary-findings. clearly distinguished jurisdic- him. It is from not before McGourin, 218 U. Harlan tional-questions. above. cases cited and other might argued
If be properly here, it proposition that publication be the- easily could demonstrated contemptuous. nothing
As to the contention that
there was
pending
publication,
the time of the
if it
judice
sub
at
be assumed
this is
essential element
it is to be
crime,
every
element,
like
other
determined,
trial court.
court,
determination of that
if erroneous, might be
The.
If
on
we were
appeal.
corrected
at all concerned with
(and
not),
here
we are
question
might
pointed
*9
CRAIG v. HECHT.
265
'
Argument
Respondent.
contemptuous
out that
criticism was not limited to
order,
to a
single past
continuing policy
but referred
in
receivership,
which was undoubtedly pending,
in that
many
receivership;
orders made
and the writer
entry
of other
in
sought
procure
the future.
orders
carefully
This
considered and
question
effectively
dis-
in
posed
opinion.
of
the trial court
its
“exceptions
rule
general
as to the
of
scope
do not include the case at
corpus
habeas
bar. There are
of cases
which the court on
only five classes
habeas
go beyond
jurisdiction.
will
of
corpus
question
(1)
is a
Where there
conflict of
between a State
and the United
where
States;
(2)
authority
and
operations
the Federal
or may
Government are
action;
(3)
interfered with
state
or obli-
rights
where
gations of the United
treaty
States under a
are involved;
(4)
where the
is held under
process
state
based
upon
law which
state
violation of the Constitution;
and (5)
judgment
where the
or order under which he is
nullity
held is
because
excess of the
court. This
analysis
classification is based
Henkel,
Henry
235 U. S.‘
and the cases there cited.
The first
exceptions
amLseeond
are closely related. The
fundamental
reason for the first four exceptions is the
necessity
employing
order expedi-
tiously
adequately to maintain
supremacy
federal laws and treaties in
compliance with
of Art.
VI
Case,
397;
the Constitution.
See Tarble’s
13 Wall.
Davis,
100 U.
257;
Tennessee
In re
Neagle,
Sachs,
1;S.
7?fre Watts and
Argument for Mayfield, re is illustrated In relations, *10 Royall, 117 U 241; is S. parte commented Ex Comingore, 177 In re U. S. Neagle, 74; Boske v. Lincoln, 202 466; In re U. S. exception, validity under which the
As' to fourth laws, infringe Constitution, the Federal state claimed to Royall, on Ex corpus, parte is sometimes tested habeas The of the example. 117 is best -241, S. ' discretionary. This purely is court in this of cases class in In re collected subject also and the cases are is discussed Lincoln, 202 U. S.' 178. of cases the exceptional
In four classes writ these is whenever the federal courts' corpus employed habeas maintaining gonfronted duty with the the su- are treaties, and the Constitution laws, premacy The attack the States. against of the United States right has no for the writ these cases absolute- applicant The given it is statute. it, except expressly to where rests in the extraordinary of this relief court’s granting in an emer- sparingly and is exerciséd discretion gency. n may be called exception, the fifth Examples 18 parte Lange, are involving power, excess cases Petitioner, 176; S. and Ex Nielsen, 131 U. Wall. strives parte 249-U. Hudgings, S. ' exception. this himself within bring n the case analogy Hudgings presents Case bar-,. judgment parte Lange, In Ex Wall. at as also absolutely void; merely erroneous but .was Bridges, 2 Petitioner, 131 176. Ex Nielsen, Ú. S. facts with identical-in 248,‘was-substantially Woods, - Mayfield, In Case, 134 TJ.S. re Loney 3^2. In re Watts the third comes‘within
plainly exception.- by. Court took Sachs, U: juris- corpus rid its geriiorarf, habeas employed CRAIG HECHT. Argument Respondent. however,
diction. Assuming, o the case were one corpus alone, habeas there was a direct conflict betweer. the state and federal courts. The case therefore is within the first exception. op
There is another situation occurring sometimes habeas it may suggested constitutes to the exception general rule. It an exception, is not but if were, it could have no application to the case at bar. Where there is a lack of the lower court its judgment void, an appellate court, authorized review its on action writ of error, may grant relief instead, corpus, .his remitting the applicant remedy by Siebold, writ of error. Ex parte S. 371. TJ. But such power can be exercised, clearly as is shown in the *11 Case, Siebold a only by court having supervisory jurisdic- tion, from which a writ error would when lie, only and assailed judgment is void. 100 also 375. See S. Ex parte Spencer, U. S. 652.
As heretofore indicated, the exceptions are enumerated merely the instances which; because of the absence of of remedy, other forms is necessary to habeas resort .it corpus order to assure the rights persons restrained of liberty, are in effect interpretations and mere of § Rev. Stats.
IV. Since the circuit court
abolished,
was
Circuit
Appeals
Court of
has no power to
the writ
grant
corpus.
of habeas
Dick,
Whitney v.
202 U.
132;
S.
Roff, 141
McLish v.
U. S. 666; Lau Ow Bew
United
v.
States, 144
55;
States,
U. S.
Fong
Ting
Yue
v. United
698;
parte Tracy,
U. S.
Opinion-of the Court. from an order ot 'discharging custody and court, made court, judge sitting district conclusion, 145. This therefore Fed. appealable. in view of the facts shown submit, we is sound the^ to the unnecessary anything and it' is to add record, Court of it the Circuit judges on reasoning Appeals.' . order,, regarded judge’s order as a though Even York, 70 Fed. appealable. nevertheless Webb v. was Carrier, Fowkes, 13; United States v. 53 Fed. v.
753;
Duff
Starr,
142;
In
.56 Fed.
United States
re
Fed.
Carper
Fitzgerald,
Lee,
Gee
YI. Misuse the situation prevalent. presents This record increasingly form. Not there in a.most aggravating manner orderly the conviction in the attempt review law, but, by deliberate of that avoidance prescribed to another method, substituted, an shape- proceedings was made to so attempt has his decision could be had. The result no review of. delay, unnecessary great expense, intolerable been still against justice offender the administration unpunished. McReynolds delivered the opinion
Mr. Justice Court.
The are Fed. opinions reported 230; below 900; Fed. 138. Fed. Fed.
In.October, 1919, petitioner Craig, of New Comptroller City, published York wrote and a letter to Public Service Nixon, Commissioner wherein he States assailed United Mayer District because of action taken in Judge certain then receivership proceedings pending. United States The him charging District filed an information with Attorney under Judicial contempt Code. .criminal .. (cid:127) v. HECHT. CRAIG Opinion . of the Court. ' n matter prolonged- évidence, given heard the Having re- opportunity the accused consideration and offered after fifteen months February 1921—some tract, on sen- the District Mayer, holding Judge Court, offense— him committed days and jail sixty for tenced Immedi- Marshal. of the custody United- States Craig pre- any appeal, effort making ately, without Honorable “To the addressed sented his verified petition, States,” Judge of United Mantón, Martin T. Circuit discharge. and final for a of habeas asking writ before Dis- all evidence and proceedings record of by reference, part made or, was annexed to trict Court and issued thé signed judge promptly the-petition. of court neither nor bore seal following writing, which attestation: clerk’s
“ America, The United States Circuit, ss.: Second Judicial York. District of New Southern Craig, L. command‘you body that the Charles We said, with the detained, together as it is .custody in your you safely detention, caption of his and cause day Mantón, T. Martin United States have before Honorable Circuit, within the for the Second Judicial Judgé Circuit all to do and receive aforesaid, District Circuit and. , said shall then and things which singular those behalf; you of him in and have then there consider this there this writ. (cid:127)and “. Mantón, T. Witness the Honorable Martin United Judge Circuit, Circuit the Second Judicial this States year the 145th February, 24th day of the United States Martin Independence America. of' n Mantón, U. S. C. J.” T. .. return,
The Marshal made and set up contempt along the District Court with the proceedings order of This traversed; and Judge commitment. Mantón ' He said and ruled— cause. heard *13 ' TERM,. of
Opinion the Court. of there within rule con- pending “Was a cause the is pend- A cause publications? libelous tempt concerning or modifications, it is to re- ing when still open final is Did judgment and until the rendered. hearing If it not, cause it did the letter concern a pending? justice. administration of could not obstruct the subject matter the court is -the application before As to matter a co-receiver. of the letter was the of this the definitely Comp- the had adverse to court decided to in this complete respect action was troller. court’s as out, . did the judge pointed . . The district matter. was before that the whole railroad situation information, it is proceeding, but court, equity the since it was- fully This of the defendant wrote. is corrobo- this that testimony the of the defendant. He also testified rated obstructing delivery had no intention of the that he himself so as obstruct the justice misbehaving or ad- hid upon stands convicted justice.' He ministration may alone inferences as be drawn there- letter and such rests an issue His conviction between Jrom. defendant, is one terminology and it court There is no intent discoverable interpretation. criminal support interpretation placed upon from this record court, judice nor was there sub pending pro- court at the time the before the written. ceeding letter that irresistible court exceeded its conclusion is (cid:127)The jurisdiction by adjudging an excess de- power' discharge granted.” for petition guilty."The fendant in this papers proceeding be filed that ordered It is States District Clerk of Court with the .United York, of New his office District the Southern Building, Borough Manhattan, City Post-Office this order recorded York, and said of New court.” an appeal. Being allowed Judge Hough
Circuit such, Circuit are without Judges, opinion v. HECHT. CRAIG Opinion of the Court. Ap- the Circuit Court corpus, writs of habeas grant *14 District by the as determined the cause treated peals and assigned, had been Mantón Judge to which Court, governed case is not find no reason this why held —“ We can- corpus proceeding rule that habeas general juris- error be limited to a writ or but must not be used as n question . The sole questions. . . dictional corpus proceedings in the habeas could be considered he had jurisdiction Judge. of to the the District If as and Craig, of jurisdiction petitioner, of the person authority to subject and jurisdiction of .render to right there was no judgment pronounced, which he and proceedings, in the habeas inquire corpus further of that not, to whether or the exercise right determine If error. Judge the District had' committed jurisdiction, committed, remedy therefor, afforded a law errors were It the Dis- concluded corpus.” habeas but jurisdiction had of Court, Mayer presiding, Judge trict of reversed the order dis- and and person, both offense charge. held that United States Circuit correctly
The court power grant have no writs of habeas such, Judges, corpus. Revised Statutes authorize
Two sections of the such writs. issuing and of granting “ and Supreme Court and the circuit dis- Sec. The issue of power have writs habeas shall trict courts corpus. “ justices judges and of the said The several Sec. 752. have respective jurisdictions, shall courts, within their for the purpose writs grant power of liberty.” into the cause restraint inquiry ah for the organization Act of Judiciary provided presided Until were over they Courts. of Circuit Supreme Court. and Justices of Judges District 44, created the office Stat. 10, 1869, April The Act Opinion of the Court. “ judicial Circuit For each of the nine Judge. existing a circuit appointed judge, shall who shall
circuits-there in his shall circuit, possess reside same powér justice as the Supreme therein Court provision the circuit.” This of— part allotted became , For circuit Sec. Rev. Stats. there shall be each judge, who shall-have appointed circuit the same justice therein as the the Supreme to the circuit. . . Court, Every allotted shall his reside within circuit.” Act'of, (Judicial Code, 289, 291, March §§ 297), their Courts, abolished Circuit conferred duties and specifically repealed District Courts and powers “ all repealed parts Rev. It-also Acts and Stats. Acts of United States cir- authorizing appointment *15 prior or . . to judges February cuit district . enacted 118, Code, provides— Section Judicial 1,1911.” “ seventh, in second, eighth There shall the and cir- in judges; four circuit fourth cuits, respectively, the cir- cuit, and in each of the other judges; circuits, two-circuit the appointed by circuit to be judges, President, by three n . and the with advice Senate. . and the consent.of each- circuit shall be of judges judges in the The' circuit in circuit, that and appeals it shall be circuit court.of the in to judge each each circuit duty of circuit sit as one of , appeals of the circuit court of in circuit that judges the- time, law: according Provided, to from time That to to any shall be construed nothing prevent this section serving or the com- judge holding court district circuit for as' and court, otherwise, provided or authorized merce .this Act.” sections'of in other Stats., give authority 751 and Rev. to Sections corpus only judges justices to and writs .habeas grant Dis- Circuit, and specified Supreme, therein courts of the — Code, the abolished Circuit Courts. The Judicial trict. and Supreme judges Court -Dis- justices of the Only. of the the ambit statute. remain within trict Courts CRAIG HECHT. to CO Opinion of the Court. “Whenever, Judicial Code. the judg- Section judge circuit of the circuit in of the senior ment to,;,such lies, justice or of the "circuit assigned district the Justice, Chief the shall circuit, public or interest judge, or associate justice, said require, Chief and Justice, designate appoint any shall district court.” to hold said the circuit writing designated and duly appointed A executed “ hold a session District Court Mantón Judge District for the Southern of New States York the United and hearing and disposition for trial of causes (cid:127) other business as may and come ex before such beginning February 21, 1921, during period him and 1921.” Petitioner’s counsel took care March ending and, to the responding motion assignment this show aas proceed should District Court in hearing petitioner’s discharge, he stated— application the “ Honor, that the writ is, your is issued position Our Judge. thereto, you In addition a Circuit were you as statute, formally under and under designated you had the. designation duty form of doing proceedings acts of a chambers District therefore and we claim that there Judge, .Court if powers, necessary, the your powers super-added Court And in Judge.” of District brief activities maintains, the writ Circuit In-issuing counsel Judge here powers his as a Circuit Mantón, addition Judge, *16 of a District powers Judge under exercising was designation.”. authority have no issue writs Judges
As Circuit unlawfully Mantón acted unless corpus, Judge habeas him as District Judge either before was the proceeding he did not Court. shows record or District authority and, as Circuit con- solely Judge; on his rely circumstances, all the we assignment. his sidering exercising he the court below with agree 74308° 24-18—
Opinion of the Court. powers District Court. He was not a District .of Judge, Judge assigned but Circuit to hold a session of the District Court.”
If it be conceded that he acted as Judge and District as the Court, District nevertheless his action was York subject to review. Webb v. (1896), 753, Fed. an appeal holds that lies to the Circuit Court of Appeals the final of a judgé from orders at chambers habeas Qorpus proceedings. Funk, Hoskins Notwithstanding 278, 239 Fed. contrary, we approve the conclusion reached Webb v. York think it is supported by argument. court said— sound “ The motion to present dismiss . . raises the question an lies to appeal whether this court from an order made a at district chambers in by a corpus habeas pro- ceeding, discharge directing prisoner. Prior to 3, 1891, act of March creating circuit courts of ap- lay from an such appeal . . orders peals to the circuit for the district by court virtue- of section 763, Rev. St. “ ‘ the final Sec. 763. From decision of any court, justice inferior to the court, upon circuit or' an application corpus of habeas or writ such writ when issued, may be taken to the court for the district . . cause heard. .’ in which the " Fowkes, In case of United States 53 Fed. 13, held that the act of March supra, operated the circuit courts of their to aiv.est appellate jurisdiction cases, corpus in habeas under section 763, and provisions the act of virtue March 1891, the circuit courts of appeals various had acquired the juris to review the decisions district diction courts in that had previously cases been exercised the cir conclusion, courts. This think, cuit we was fairly war following clause. ranted . . . “ ‘ 4. That no appeal, Sec. whether by writ error otherwise, shall hereafter or be taken allowed from any
CRAIG v. HECHT.
Opinion of the Court.
to the
circuit
no
existing
courts,
district court
and
ap-
shall hereafter
be exercised or
pellate
allowed
existing
courts,
circuit
but all
appeals by writ of
said
said,
from
district courts shall
otherwise,
error
in the
of
supreme
to review
court
the United
subject
of appeals hereby
or in the circuit court
estab-
States
, .
lished.
/
“
Carrier,
awas previous right of appeal abolished. We think, *18 therefore, that may it fairly concluded that it was the intention of Congress to confer on. circuit courts of appeals the to right hear from appeals final orders made by district judges habeas corpus cases, as well as to hear appeals from final decisions of district courts made ' in such cases. We can conceive of no reason why the
right should be denied the one case granted in the other, such we believe the intent .and of the law was.not maker. the case of Lee, United States v. In Gee 50 Fed. ‘ it held 271, that the words was of the district ’ for the district as court used an act of Congress, were ‘ to equivalent the words district 'court the district.’ By similar of construction, latitude the intent being 4 of act clear, 1891, we think that section of March-3, an appeal be held to authorize to the may United States from a court decision of district appeals final a. corpus case, at a habeas as well as from chambers á district court.” a final decision of States, 194 Petitioner S. 194. United U. See also 87; Lennon, S. In re 150 Fitzgerald, Carper v. James, McKnight 685; 155 U. S. v. v. Lambert 393; U. S. Barrett, Wadley, 157 U. Harkrader U. S. to appeal lay show that no are cited 148, These cases discharging petitioner. from the order relate Court,' to the this not the Circuit Court of The first cited and most relied one Appeals. recognizes in 1887. It distinction decided between such, of a ns and decrees judge, orders court. It to right judge’s here from appeal denied order; power did not discuss the to Circuit Courts review go such orders. The later cited cases no further than to hold that do not lie appeals to this Court from- orders judges at chambers. we
Although point, agree cannot with Ex parte Jacobi, 104 Fed. where the opinion the Circuit v. HECHT.
CRAIG Opinion of Court. to the Cir- denial an support to attempts Judge order at chambers. granted from an Appeals cuit Court appeal. had below court unusual about merits, nothing is there On the Hudgings; Ex parte us. Unlike cause before now “ regarded exception an it cannot be 378, 384, U. S. we think it Nor do procedure.”' rules of general extraordinary bring sufficiently circumstances presents cases.” any exceptional Henry it within class of Henkel, ordinary by Judge Mayer heard matter Newspaper Toldeo Co. v. United
contempt proceeding the District States, enough show it, whether evi- Court had entertain decide *19 an offense within the statute and deter- dence established the latter guilt or innocence. When petitioner’s mine remedy by ap- his aggrieved by found himself decree single asked a Neglecting course, he peal plain. the entire and now judge upset proceedings, to review from As claims the favorable order. there no new matter Hough, there is tersely by Judge stated jurisdiction; really hap- what attacking this record again, tried over and the .the case was pened was than a for obtaining was no more device so-called writ purpose The course taken indicates studied new trial.” proceeding by of either appellate review escape complain may court. Petitioner unfortunate con- sequences to himself. Court Appeals correctly applied Circuit the well- that a general
established
rule
writ of habeas corpus
purpose
proceeding"'
cannot be utilized
in error.
McGourin,
Tajt, concurring. J., Ch. releasing petitioner; discharge the writ; and take such further proceédings as may be necessary to carry this opinion into effect.
Affirmed. Mr. Justice Sutherland took no part in the considera- tion or decision of this cause.
Mr. Chief Justice Taft, concurring. ’-
I fully concur the opinion of the Court. It is of primary importance that the right freely com- .to ment on and criticise the action, opinions and judgments of courts and judges should be preserved inviolate; but' it is also that courts and judges essential should not be impeded judicial the conduct of business by publica- tions having the tendency and effect of direct obstruct- ing the enforcement of their and judgments; or orders justice and- impairing impartiality of verdicts. If publication criticises the or-court after criticism, with which the the matter has Ho’ do has been- finally adjudicated and the. proceedings are ended so that judgment of the court’s carrying-out can not be obstructed, the' thereby publication'is-not contempt summarily punished by not be can the court however unjust it may malicious be.' false, The remedy of the as an individual by" action or prosecution for however, the If, publication libel. is intended and cal- *20 to obstruct and embarrass the in culated court a pending in the- matter of proceeding the rendition of an impartial carrying or in the out of verdict, its orders and judgment, and may, the it is its duty court to protect the adminis- by justice punishment tration: the offender for con- tempt. concerning
The federal statute contempts as construed vests, in prior this'Court cases the trial judge the whether, a jurisdiction publication to decide is obstructive CRAIG v. HECHT. Taft, J., concurring. Ch. defamatory only. The delicacy there inis the judge’s whéther an attack
deciding own judicial his action is mere criticism or real obstruction, and the possibility that his to impulse.may incline view personal vindication, are But the law gives person manifest.. the convicted right such a case the to have the contempt whole on question facts and law reviewed three judges have Appeals the Circuit Court who had no part if court, and not successful that proceedings, an a .opportunity this Court for for re- apply to similar view here. and his counsel have made pétitioner such review this in- pursuing plain remedy Instead of
impossible.- have' done the trial justice may judge that been court review of this securing by appellate very serious they merits, sought by to a applying on the question only coordinate for a writ óf- authority single judge release the on petitioner ground without make judge trial that the sole raised the issue whether did. This he decision authority decide the question, had trial it. had-rightly he whether decided of this Court made'years ago a decision on Relying ¿hose were different statutory from provisions when and his petitioner thought counsel apply,, now a decision from a single could secure they if that lie releasing appeal would from petitioner, to the thus resort courts appellate decision and his judge to single they ap- whom be avoided. could They however, mis- were, prisoner. released plied lay judge’s. no- from the appeal in supposing taken jurisdiction. of the trial court’s question on the decision issue its prosecuted The Government is the matter the trial court’s that review presented Court of and we Appeals which the Circuit counsel threw In his way, this uphold. *21 (cid:127) Brandéis, JJ., dissenting. Holmes and away opportunity for a review of the case on its merits in the Circuit Court of Appeals and this in their Court to make a short cut and secure purpose final release through the act of a single judge. This is the situation in and we are without power finds himself him, to relieve Holmes, dissenting.
Mr. Justice I think that petitioner’s resort tó habeas this right case was and was proper thé course. Very possibly some of the cases confuse the principles govern jurisdiction with those that govern merits. See Lum, Fauntleroy 210 U. 235. But I think 'jurisdiction. this should be treated as a question puts power, statute it as a matter The said courts power shall have ... . . punish contempts authority: Provided, of their That such power to punish contempts shall not be construed to any extend to cases except the misbehavior of any person their presence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice,” etc. Jüd. Code, 268. I think that these words should be literally taken and that we do not need a better illustration of the need to jurisdictional treat them as confine the very narrowly than the present case. For we must not power confound the punish this kind of contempts with the overcome pun disobedience, ish to or defiance of the orders of a court, although unfortunately both are the same called'by name. That of course a court may and should use as fully as needed, but this, especially if it is to be extended by decisions to which I cannot agree, makes a man matters which he likely to have keen personal interest is. feeling although neither self-protection duty nor the on with going the work requires him to take such a part. It seems to .me that the statute on its face plainly limits in this cla-ssof cases to those
CRAIG v. HECHT. Brandéis, JJ., dissenting. Holmes and *22 personal necessary his action is in a strict sense in' '.where him order enable on his go with work. But wherever jurisdictional line be drawn may the it is a line. n when attaches the suit presents Blumen claim under an Congress.” substantial act Agency stock Brothers Publish Advertising v. Curtis Co., 441. ing Hudgings, Ü. S. U. S. 378. n that- the (cid:127) I think sentence from which petitioner than an I relief was more abuse of think power. seeks held I wholly should be void. think in place' the first that was no matter pending there before Court it must be make this sense that kind of contempt It is not possible: enough somebody may hereafter move to have something done. There was nothing then decision when the awaiting petitioner’s letter .was pub English lished. The cases show that England law of Gounod, Metzler at least is accord with view. my 30 Law Times if R., S.,N. 264. But been, there had the most giving interpretation unfavorable to all that the I do not letter see-how to misstate says, matters of past of the sort charged fact here could be said to obstruct justice. Suppose administration petitioner falsely unjustly charged with judge excluded him having knowledge facts, from how can it be pretended. charge obstructed the administration of justice the. when, judge seemingly was willing to it if condone ? retract Unless a judge would sitting while can lay any hold of one who ventures to publish anything that him tends to make or to I unpopular belittle him cannot power Judge Mayer see what had to touch Craig. Mr. Even if feeling was tense there is no such thing what Metzler v. Gounod calls contingent con J., Keating, manA cannot tempt. summarily be laid heels may words public because his make feeling more unfav orable in case the should asked to act at some TEEM, 1923.
Syllabus. later date, any more he can for exciting than public feeling against already what he has done. opinion.
Mr. Justice concurs in this Brandéis CALI SECURITY BANK STATE SAVINGS OF FORNIA. OF
ERROR THE OF THE CALIFORNIA. TO SUPREME COURT STATE November No. 1923. Decided 21. Submitted October having place banking, Savings deposits, corporation its a state intangible creation, property within the are business of its State *23 subject, tangible property, like to the dominion of State. P. 285. appropriate requiring bank, through procedure, A law
2. state a long unclaimed, pay deposits, such when to the to over State by way right depositary escheat, or violates no the bank process under the contract clause of the Constitution or the due Amendment, bank’s clause of the Fourteenth since the contracts merely give depositors money with until the use of the by proper authority, payment called for State in obedi- to the obligation discharges law ence a valid its to Id. to them. proceeding in a two essentials the State to deposits, escheat such unclaimed in order effect an that depositors may protected, be boimd and bank are seizure of beginning the suit the res at the and reasonable notice opportunity depositors. heard to be accorded P. 287. involved, res California statutes here seizure of the 4. Under the by personal bank, brought accomplished is service on suit Attorney County, due notice is General Sacramento county given depositors by publication summons, of a notice, also, persons appear and to all other show cause with a deposited w'hy- money be should not with the State Treasurer. Id. depositors impos- personal affidavit service on Proof impracticable prerequisite
sible is not constitutional service proceeding, by publication depositors such an escheat where the impleaded who are not known to the hank officials are those accounts have not alive, whose been added or drawn