Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Page. Public Utility Holding Company Act, 1935 424

Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act 424

Revenue Act, 1916.

§§207, 208 95

§§209, 211 329

Revenue Act, 1919, § 409.... 329 Revenue Act, 1921, § 409... 329 Revenue Act, 1924.

§ 303 95, 476

§ 315 329

Revenue Act, 1926.

§ 302 329

§303 476

§§313, 314 329

§315 329,338

§ 323 95

Revenue Act, 1928.

§119 399

§ 613 329

Revenue Act, 1932 49

§114 222

§119 399

§510 329

§807 95,476

§809 329

Revenue Act, 1934.

§22 154,602

§114 222

§S 161-168 154

Page.

Revenue Act, 1934—Continued.

§§166,167 154,602

§ 509 329

Revenue Act, 1936.

§§13-15 102

§22 399

§§26,27,43 102

§117 399

§§145,291-294 492

Revenue Act, 1939, § 401 329

Revenue Act, 1942, § 145 222

Safety Appliance Act 481

Securities Act, 1933 424

Securities Exchange Act 424

Securities Exchange Act,

1934 424

Settlement of War Claims

Act, 1928 399

Sherman Antitrust Act 173,

341,424,537

§§1,2 200,341

§3 519

§§ 7,15 341

Shipping Act, 1916, § 9 395

Suits in Admiralty Act.

§§1,2,4,5 395,575

§8 575

Trading with the Enemy Act,

§§2,7 69

U. S. Employees Compensation Act 575

Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, §§ 1-6.... 501

(B) Statutes Op The States And Territories.

Alabama.

Code, 1940, Tit. 7,
§§ 727, 743; Tit. 47,

§ 168 325

California.

1933 Stats., c. 754 341

1935 Stats., cs. 471, 743. 341

1938 Stats., Extra Sess.,

c. 6 341

1939 Stats., cs. 363, 548,
894 341

1941 Stats., cs. 603,1150,

1186 341

Penal Code, § 19 341

Agricultural Prorate
Act, §§ 3, 4, 6, 8-11,
14-16, 18, 22, 22.5,
25 341

Georgia.

Code, § 38-1604 518

Indiana.

1931 Acts, c. 90 135

Burns Stats., 1933, §§ 3

1801 to 3-1809 135

Michigan.

1934 Laws, Act No. 38,

Extra Sess 338

Com p. Laws, 1929,

§ 3429 338

Com p. Laws, 1929,

§3746 329,338

Missouri.

Constitution, § 4 of 1890
Amendments to Art.
VI 587

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Pmge.

Nebraska.

Comp. Stats., 1929,

§ 27-204 604

Nevada.

1931 Laws, §§ 9460,
9467.02 287

Comp. Laws, 1929,

§ 9460 287

New York.

1930 Laws, c. 709, § 124. 95

1932 Laws, c. 391 399

1933 Laws, c. 745 78

1935 Laws, cs. 19, 290.. 78
Decedent Estate Law,

§ 124 88

Schackno Act 78

North Carolina.

Code, 1939, §4342 287

Ohio.

1809, Act of Feb. 17,
§ 13, 7 Ohio Laws, p.
188 134

(C) Foreign Statutes.

Australia.

Constitution Act, 1900,
Art. 51 287

English.

4 Geo. VI, c. 25, §5.... lll
6 Geo. VI, c. 10 lll

English—Continued.

British North America
Act, 1867, Art. 91.... 287

Wheat Acreage Reduc-
tion Act, 1942 lll

CASES ADJUDGED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

AT

JULY SPECIAL TERM, 1942.

EX PARTE QUIRIN Et Al.1

NOS. , ORIGINAL. MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS

FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

AND

UNITED STATES Ex Rel. QUIRIN Et Al. V. COX, PROVOST MARSHAL.2

NOS. 1-7. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
i

Argued July 29-30, 1942.—Decided July 31,1942.

Per Curiam decision filed, July 31,1942.3 Full Opinion filed, October

29, 1942.4

1. A federal court may refuse to issue a writ of habeas corpus where the facts alleged in the petition, if proved, would not warrant discharge of the prisoner. P. 24.

1 No. —, Original, Ex parte Richard Quirin; No. —, Original, Ex parte Herbert Hans Haupt; No. —, Original, Ex parte Edward John

Kerling; No. , Original, Ex parte Ernest Peter Burger; No. ,

Original, Ex parte Heinrich Harm Heinck; No. —, Original, Ex parte Werner Thiel; and No. —, Original, Ex parte Hermann Otto Nevbauer.

1 No. 1, United States ex rel. Quirin v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 2, United States ex rel. Haupt v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 3, United States ex rel. Kerling v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 4, United States ex rel. Burger v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 5, United States ex rel. Heinck v. Cox, Provost Marshal; No. 6, United States ex rel. Thiel v. Cox, Provost Marshal; and No. 7, United States ex rel. Neubauer v. Cox, Provost Marshal.

* See footnote, post, p. 18.

♦Port, p. 18.

603873—43 8 *

Syllabus. 317 U.S.

2. Presentation to the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia of a petition for habeas corpus was the institution of a suit; and denial by that court of leave to file the petition was a judicial determination of a case or controversy reviewable by appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and in this Court by certiorari. P. 24.

3. The President's Proclamation of July 2, 1942, declaring that all persons who are citizens or subjects of, or who act under the direction of, any nation at war with the United States, and who during time of war enter the United States through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile acts, or violations of the law of war, "shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals," does not bar accused persons from access to the civil courts for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Proclamation to the particular case; nor does the Proclamation, which in terms denied to such persons access to the courts, nor the enemy alienage of the accused, foreclose consideration by the civil courts of the contention that the Constitution and laws of the United States forbid their trial by military commission. P. 24.

4. In time of war between the United States and' Germany, petitioners, wearing German military uniforms and carrying explosives, fuses, and incendiary and time devices, were landed from German submarines in the hours of darkness, at places on the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Thereupon they buried the uniforms and supplies, and proceeded, in civilian dress, to various places in the United States. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government. They also had been paid by the German Government during their course of training at a sabotage school, and had with them, when arrested, substantial amounts of United States currency, which had been handed to them by an officer of the German High Command, who had instructed them to wear their German uniforms while landing in the United States. Specification 1 of the charges on which they were placed on trial before a military commission charged that they, "being enemies of the United States and acting for . . . the German Reich, a belligerent enemy nation, secretly and covertly passed, in civilian dress, contrary to the law of war, through the military and naval lines and defenses of the United

« ForrigeFortsett »