Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1809-05-15

Il 4 !.
There is no dispute about the facts The
defendants have called no witnesses-and
their defence is rested upon the lawtulness
of the acts laid in the Indictment. They
Justify their conduct upon two grounds
Isl. That the decree of the district court
under which the process issued was coruns
non 1fudice, and to all intents and purpos-
es void /; and IDLY, That though it were
valid and binding decree, still that they
cannot be questioned criminally for acting
lin obedience to the orders of the governor
of this state.
The decree Of the district court is said to
be void, for two reasons; first, because the
court-of appeals had not a power to reverse
the sentence Of the court Of admiralty found
ed upon the verdict of jury; and IDLY,
because the state of Pennsylvania claims
an interest in the subject which was in con-
stroversy in the district court.
The first question is, was the decree Of
the court of appeals void for want Of iuris-
diction Of the case in which it was made
But first let me ask, can this be made a
+ q
ny other court inthe United States We
onsider it to be SO firmly settled by the
CHEST judicial authority in the nation, that
is not now to be questioned or shaken
he power>of the court of appeals,to re-ex,
nine and reverse or affirm the sentence of
e courts of admiralty established by the
aerent states, though founded upon the
rdicts Of iuries, was first coa5ideied and
.c;ded in the case ~oG Doan and Penhal-
w, in the supreme court OF the United
tates. The jurisdiction OF the court to
.-examine the whole cause as. to both law
nd fact, was considered as resulting FROM
he national character. OF an appellate prize
curt, and not from any grant Of power bv
he state from whose court the appeal had
)een taken, The right of the state to limit
he court of appeals in the exercise of It's
jurisdiction, was determined to .oe totally
inadmissiblc. The same qHestionwas con-
sidered by the supreme court upon the mo-
ton for the mandamus, and decided to be
settled and at rest. ,sGGf it wese necessary to
give further support 60 the ,aatherity Of
these cases, the opinion of the supreme
court of Pennsylvania in Ross'a executors,
Us. Rittenhouse, and the +unan:B Gus OPT
Man Of the old Congress, with the excep-
ton OF the representatives. cf'this state, and
one of the representative of New Jersey,
might be mentioned. If reasons were re
CURED to strengthen the above decisions,
those assigned BY the committee Of con-
gress, upon the case the Active, are be-
lieved to be conclusive.
But ] think It aill not be difficult to
prove that the law of Pennsylvania, passed
on the 9th of September, 4 rs, establish
ing court Of admiralty in that state, nei-
ther by'she terms of it, nor by a fair ca,,-
struction Of Its meaning, was intended 10 a
! bridge the jurisdictions Of tlae4court of APP
peals in cases like. the one under CONSIDERS
istion. The words are, that the Jury shall
DE sworn or affirmed to return a true YER
dict upon the hbel-according to evidence |;
|, and the finding of the jury shall establish
the facts without denomination or APP
peal" Ihe obvious meaning Of this pro-
vision was, that if the jury found the facts
upon which thslaw waste arise, those facts
were to be considered as. conclusive BY the
appellate cortland not open 70 re<rxamin-
alton by the judges of that court; the le-
gislature. thinking it, no doubt, most safe
to entruss the finding Of facts 70 a jury Of
twelve men. Bat what was to be done if the
jury found no facts, as was the present
case fthe appellate court were preclud-
ed. FROM an enquiry intofhe facts, affirm
ance of the sente,.>9 appealed from would