In the Matter of Keeler.
case excludes the possibility of assuming any powers not expressly granted. This court cannot assume to itself any of the powers, or clothe itself with any of the jurisdiction, granted to the Kentucky court by law subsequent to the act of 1789.
Congress has specifically defined the boundaries of the State of Arkansas, and by giving to this court only the powers given to the Kentucky district court by the act of 1789, it has given this court no jurisdiction beyond those boundaries. Several laws were passed subsequent to 1789, giving the different United States courts jurisdiction over crimes committed in the Indian country. The provisions of none of these laws are declared by congress to apply to this court. It is referred solely to the law of 1789, and the possibility of taking jurisdiction by virtue of any subsequent law is absolutely excluded.
Nor is this court the successor of the superior court of the territory. That court has ceased to exist. This is a new court, established by a special law, and having specific and limited powers. Congress has neglected even to continue over to this court the business of the United States pending in the late superior court. They have not day, nor are they triable here. This court neither succeeds to the business nor to the powers of that. The powers of that court were far more extensive than this; and much as this court may regret that it has not the power, still it is clear in the opinion that it can claim no jurisdiction. beyond the limits of the State. Upon this ground, the prisoner will be discharged.
In the Matter of GEORGE B. KEELER,
- By the judicial act of 1789, the courts and judges of the United St.ates are expressly authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus, and reference must be made to the common law to ascertain the nature of that writ. 3 Peters, 201.
- The writ of habeas corpus is a great prerogative writ known to the common law, the great object of which is, the liberation of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause. It is in the nature of a writ of error to examine the legality of the commitment.
