26 FEDERAL auronrnn. .
In Martin v. Huntefs Lessee, 1 Wheat. 355, the court say: "A hnal
judgment of this court is supposed to be conclusive upon the rights
which it decides, and no statute has provided any process by which
this court can revise its own judgments." Schell v. Dodge, 2 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 830; U. S. v. Millinger, 7 Fun. REP. 187; S. C. 19 Blatchf. 202.
District courts sitting in admiralty cannot set aside their own decrees,
except as expressly authorized. The Illinois, 1 Brown, Adm. 13.
The general principles of law applicable to special statutory tribu-
nals, the uniform course of decision as to the binding character ol
their determinations collateral1y, and their inability directly to recall,
review, or reverse them; except as specially authorized by law, are in
accord with what seems to me to be also thelanguage and the in·
tent of section 2931 as tothe binding character of the secretary's de-
cision on appeal, uponfboth the government and the importer; and
it follows, therefore, that judgment should be ordered for the de-
fendant.
Uurrnn Sums ed: rel. Dmmme v. Hsnonnrr, Sheriff.
(Oircuit O'0urt,N D. Illinois. October 1, 1883.)
1. Mirmrsnv SEBVIGE—EULISTMENT on Mmons.
Section l117,`Rev. St., being the first section of the act of May 15, 1872, pro-
vides that ** no person under the age of 21 years shall be enlisted or mustered
into the military service of the United States without the written consent of
his parents or guardians, provided that such minor has parents or guardians
entitled to his custody or coutrol."_
2.`SAlVlE—DESERTION nr Minors- Drscmmou on Punsons ILLEGALLY Emnrsrrsn.
Although it is made the duty of the secretary of war to discharge any per-
son illegally enlisted as a soldier, that delegation of power to the secretary of
war does not deprive the courts of their power, prescribed by the constitution,
to discharge under writ of habeas cmgnus.
Habeas Corpus. .
William H. Shirrland, for petitioner.
No appearance by Hanchett.
Bnonosrr, J. The relator in this case, by his petition to this
court, alleges that he is a minor, under the age of 21 years, and has
parents living who are entitled to his custody and control; that on
the fourth day of August, 1883, at a recruiting station of the United
States army in the city of Chicago, he assumed to enlist as a soldier
in the United States army, and was mustered by the onicer in charge
of such recruiting station into the military service of the United
States; that such enlistment and muster were wholly without the con·
. sent of relator’s parents, who are entitled to his services; that within
three days after such enlistment, and before he had been assigned to
any military duty, he left the rendezvous for recruits in this city, where
· he had been temporarily quartered, and did not voluntarily return