The King v. Haas

Last updated March 11, 2021

The King v. Haas, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 9 (Pa. 1764) is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ^[1] issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports , and is among the earliest appellate court reports in North America. It is also one of the first reported appellate cases to apply the writ of habeas corpus, then an established principle of English law, in the English colonies that later became the first thirteen states of the United States of America.

Colonial and early state court cases in the United States Reports

None of the decisions appearing in the first volume and most of the second volume of the United States Reports are actually decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Instead, they are decisions from various Pennsylvania courts, dating from the colonial period and the first decade after Independence. Alexander Dallas, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania lawyer and journalist, had been in the business of reporting these cases for newspapers and periodicals. He subsequently began compiling his case reports in a bound volume, which he called "Reports of cases ruled and adjudged in the courts of Pennsylvania, before and since the Revolution".^[2] This would come to be known as the first volume of Dallas Reports.

When the United States Supreme Court, along with the rest of the new Federal Government, moved in 1791 to the nation's temporary capital in Philadelphia, Dallas was appointed the Supreme Court's first unofficial and unpaid Supreme Court Reporter. (Court reporters in that age received no salary, but were expected to profit from the publication and sale of their compiled decisions.) Dallas continued to collect and publish Pennsylvania decisions in a second volume of his Reports, and when the Supreme Court began hearing cases, he added those cases to his reports, starting towards the end of the second volume, 2 Dallas Reports. Dallas would go on to publish a total of 4 volumes of decisions during his tenure as Reporter.

In 1874, the U.S. government created the United States Reports, and numbered the volumes previously published privately as part of that series, starting from the first volume of Dallas Reports. The four volumes Dallas published were retitled volumes 1–4 of United States Reports.^[3] As a result, decisions appearing in these early reports have dual citation forms; one for the volume number of the United States Reports, and one for the set of reports named for the reporter (called nominative reports). For example, the complete citation to The King v. Haas is 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 9 (Pa. 1764).

The decision

Dallas's report of this case, as with many of his early decisions, does not include the actual language of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision, but only describes the proceedings in the incomplete and general terms that has evoked criticism from later generations.^[4] The nature of the accusation against Mr. Haas (and the unnamed "others" mentioned in the title of the case) are lost to history. What is known is that the defendant asked the court to compel the prosecutor to either bring the case to trial, or dismiss it. ("discharge the Defendant.") It is not known how long the defendant had awaited trial prior to his motion.

The court denied the defendant's motion, saying that it would not compel the Attorney General to act unless the defendant demonstrated that he suffered some type of oppression as a result of the Attorney General's delay.

Habeas corpus and speedy trial in colonial courts

Dallas's report of the case includes a footnote that makes mention of a habeas corpus statute enacted on February 18, 1705.^[5] Such an enactment would appear to be a Pennsylvania colonial statute modeled on the English Habeas Corpus Act 1679 which had repeatedly been interpreted not to apply to the North American colonies.^[6] However, the language of the Pennsylvania act is unknown, and it may not have been in effect in any case. The British crown frequently repealed such colonial enactments.^[7] At any rate, Dallas's report includes so little of the detail of the case, including the charges laid, the date of Haas's arrest, or the date the indictment came down, that no meaningful habeas corpus analysis is possible. Nor is it possible to determine whether Haas sought a speedy trial. What is clear is that at this stage of colonial development, Haas appears to have no rights to either habeas corpus, or to a speedy trial of whatever charge(s) he faced.

Notes

↑ "Lessee of Albertson v. Robeson, 1 Dall. 9 (Pa. 1764); King v. Rapp, 1 Dall. 9 (Pa. 1764); and King v. Haas, 1 Dall. 9 (Pa. 1764)". law.onecle.com. Retrieved 9 March 2021.
↑ Cohen, Morris and O'Connor, Sharon H. A Guide to the Early Reports of the Supreme Court of the United States, (Fred B. Rothman & Co, Littleton Colorado, 1995
↑ Hall, Kermit, ed. Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (Oxford 1992), pp 215, 727
↑ Raymond J. Walters, Jr. Alexander James Dallas: Lawyer - Politician -- Financier (New York: Da Capo Press 1969) p. 102.
↑ Laws of Pennsylvania, Habeas Corpus Act, chap. 1121 (1705)
↑ Carpenter, A. H., Habeas Corpus in the Colonies, 9 Amer. Hist. Rev. 18, 19-20 (1904)
↑ id. at 23.

Related Research Articles

Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the effective assistance of counsel during a criminal trial.

<i>United States Reports</i> United States Supreme Court decisions

The United States Reports are the official record of the Supreme Court of the United States. They include rulings, orders, case tables, in alphabetical order both by the name of the petitioner and by the name of the respondent, and other proceedings. United States Reports, once printed and bound, are the final version of court opinions and cannot be changed. Opinions of the court in each case are prepended with a headnote prepared by the Reporter of Decisions, and any concurring or dissenting opinions are published sequentially. The Court's Publication Office oversees the binding and publication of the volumes of United States Reports, although the actual printing, binding, and publication are performed by private firms under contract with the United States Government Publishing Office.

This is a list of all the cases from volume 1 of the United States Reports. None of the decisions appearing in the first volume and only a few in the second volume of United States Reports are actually decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Instead, they are decisions from various Pennsylvania courts dating from the colonial period and the first decade after independence. Alexander J. Dallas, a Philadelphia lawyer and journalist, had been in the business of reporting these cases for newspapers and periodicals. He subsequently began compiling his case reports in a bound volume, which he called Reports of cases ruled and adjudged in the courts of Pennsylvania, before and since the Revolution. This and the three additional volumes he later produced would come to be known as the Dallas Reports.

Lessee of Hyam v. Edwards, is the title of two separate decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. The first decision is found at 1 U.S. 1 and is the first decision that appears in the first volume of United States Reports. The second decision is found at 1 U.S. 2.

Lessee of Weston v Stammers, 1 U.S. 2 (1759) were two separate decisions of the Pennsylvania Provincial Court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. They are among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Stevenson v. Pemberton, 1 U.S. 3 (1760) is a decision of the Pennsylvania Provincial Court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Lessee of Ashton v. Ashton, 1 U.S. 4 (1760) is a decision of a Pennsylvania Provincial Court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Hewes v. M'Dowell, 1 U.S. 5 (1762) is a decision of a Pennsylvania Provincial Court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Lessee of Fothergill v. Fothergill, 1 U.S. 6 (1763) is a decision of the Pennsylvania Provincial Supreme Court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

The King v. Lukens, 1 U.S. 5 (1762) is a decision of a Pennsylvania Provincial Court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Nixon v. Long, 1 U.S. 6 is a decision of a Pennsylvania Provincial Court, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Wallace v. Child, 1 U.S. 7 (1763) is a decision of a Pennsylvania Provincial Court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Price v. Watkins, 1 U.S. 8 (1763) is a decision of a Pennsylvania Provincial Court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

The King v. Rapp, 1 U.S. 9 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports, and is among the earliest reported appellate court decisions in North America.

Lessee of Albertson v. Robeson, 1 U.S. 9 (1764) is a decision of a Pennsylvania Provincial Court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.

Lessee of Richardson v. Campbell, 1 U.S. 10 (1764) is a decision of a Pennsylvania provincial court, issued when Pennsylvania was still an English colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports, and is among the earliest surviving reports of judicial proceedings in North America. It is also one of the first applications of the Statute of Frauds, then an established principle of English law, in the English colonies that later became the first thirteen states of the United States of America.

United States v. Hamilton, 3 U.S. 17 (1795), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a defendant committed on a charge of treason was released on bail, despite having been imprisoned upon a warrant of committal by a district court judge. The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that "upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death, in which cases it shall not be admitted but by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and the usages of law." Ordinarily, habeas corpus was used to release prisoners held by the judgment of the executive, but not for those who commitment had been authorized by a court order. Hamilton's attorney argued that the district court judge did not hold a hearing before issuing a warrant for his commitment to jail and that the affidavits alleging treasonous activity were weak, while the government urged that the Judiciary Act did not give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to review the district court's decision unless there was new information or misconduct. The Supreme Court set bail, but without addressing either attorney's arguments.

Sims's Lessee v. Irvine, 3 U.S. 425 (1799), is an early United States Supreme Court case about conflicting land claims. General William Irvine had been granted Montour's Island by Pennsylvania for his service in the American Revolutionary War, but the island was also claimed by Charles Simms of Virginia. The Court unanimously found in favor of Simms, who had the earlier claim.

References

Hall, Kermit, ed. Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (Oxford 1992)
Goebel, Jr., Julius, The Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States Volume 1: Antecedents and Beginnings to 1801 (Macmillan, 1971)
Walters, Jr., Raymond Alexander Dallas: Lawyer -- Politician -- Financier, 1759 - 1817 (Da Capo Press, 1969)
Lessee of Albertson v. Robeson, 1 Dall. 9 (Pa. 1764); King v. Rapp, 1 Dall. 9 (Pa. 1764); and King v. Haas, 1 Dall. 9 (Pa. 1764) (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, April Term, 1764)