Ex parte Jim Hong

(after stating the facts as above). [1] It is apparent from the record that the court below proceeded upon the theory that the inquiry under the writ of habeas corpus involved the merits of the proceeding pending before the United States commissioner, .to the extent at least of ascertaining and determining as to the right of the appellee under the certificate held by him to remain in the United States, and that this theory actuated the judgment entered. But if the commissioner had acquired jurisdiction in the proceeding, this view of the learned judge involved manifest error. No question is better settled in the federal courts than that of the proper functions of the writ of habeas corpus and the limitations of the inquiry that may be had under its authority. As far back as Ex parte Tobias Watkins, 3 Pet. 193 , 7 L. Ed. 650 , the office of this writ was held to be confined to an inquiry into the cause of the commitment; and, if it be ascertained that the party invoking it is held under process of a court *76 or tribunal having jurisdiction of his person and of the subject-matter of the charge involved, the inquiry under the writ is at an end and it must be diámissed. In other…