David Josiah Brewer

“ While the same reasons do not apply when the petitioner is in custody by virtue of the process of a Federal court, yet a writ of habeas corpus is not to be made use of as a writ of error (Crossley v. California, 168 U.S. 640, 42 L. ed. 610, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 242; Whitney v. Dick. 202 U.S. 132, 50 L. ed. --, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 584) ; the ordinary procedure for the correction of errors in criminal cases is by writ of error, and that method should be pursued unless there be special circumstances calling for a departure therefrom. ”

“ It is true that we issued a writ of habeas corpus in a case in some respects like the present (Re Heff, 197 U.S. 488, 49 L. ed. 848, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 506) , and it is relied upon by petitioner as authority for this application; but it was shown in that case that there was a direct conflict between the state and local Federal courts in the precise point of law involved, each asserting jurisdiction over the same offense; that the court of appeals had already decided the question adversely to the contention of petitioner, so that a writ of error from that court would have accomplished nothing ”

“ While the full jurisdiction of this court in habeas corpus may be conceded, there is in every case a question whether the exercise of such jurisdiction is appropriate. In Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 29 L. ed. 868, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734, Royall, who was held under state process for trial on an indictment charging an offense against the laws of the state, filed his petition in habeas corpus in the circuit court of the United States, praying release from that custody. ”