Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-07-27
THE ATTACHMENT CASE. No. Y,
To the Editor Of the alexandria Gazette

Barbour against the power 10 arrest Mr. Ran.
dolph himself in Virginia, for the assault com.
mitted by hin within the District Of Columbia.
are conclusive against the power now assumed
to summon aud attach the respondent" as wit.
ness in the same or a similar case; and 81 every
reason that operates against the arrest in the frs,
instance concludes, tortiori, against the sum.
nous and attachment, in the other" [ cannot
consider the opinion ot these distinguished
Judges conclusive, even in the actual. case sub.
United to them to act on and msch less SO on
case not submitted to them, aud diss',ilar in al,
its parts. have never understood that ,,e oDi.
Mon Of single Judge. however respected. on 40
application Tor warrant to arrest party accus
ed Of an Silence, was conclusive OH any one, eyen
ON himself. Bur, be this al il may, I.have been
informed that Mr.. Justice Baldwin, of the Su
preme Court, aud Judge HopkinsoD. Of the Dis
trict of Pennsylvania, and Judge Hall, of the
| District of Delaware, did each issue a warrant
against Mr. Randolph for this same assault -
| With respect to the opinion Of the Chief Justice.
it is said, that on his declining to issue that war
rant, he remarked. I" that ii is perplexing ques.
lion: that the words bf the act are in contradic
ton to its plain spirit and policy; but the let.
ter is SO explicit, he could not see that he could
exercise the authority" What law is il o,
which this opinion was given? It's the SD Sec.
ton Of the Judiciary Act Of 1899. vol. /, .. 20.
The question he decided was, whether he could,
under that section of the law, issue his warrant
TO arrest Mr.. Randolph and send him to the Dis.
trict of Columbia for trial. lie was not called
on to decide whether the Circuit Court of the
District of Colu,nbia was Court Of the UUiled
Siates-the point he decided was, that the Cir.
cult Court of the District Of Columbia is not
embraced by the letter Of that act; nor Wa.
he called to decide whether witness residing 10
Virginia cnuld be summoned to attend il, aud
be attached by it for refusing 10 obey the sum
mons. The Chief Justice has not pointed out
the difference between the letter and 1.-THE plain
spirit and policy" Of the law. Il is, therefore,
difficult to ascertain the nature of his perplexity
10 my mind, however. It is plain that the letter
# the law entirely agrees with its spirit and pc.
icv
Judge Barbour states that the question depends
upon the proper construction of the SD section
of the Judiciary Act Of 1889, which enacts that,
Tor any crime or offence against the u. States,
the offender may. by any Justice or Judge Of the
U. States, or by any Justice Of the Peace, or
Magistrate of any of the U. States where he NAY
be found, asreeaby to the usual mode Of process
against offenders in such State; be arrested and
imprisoned, or bailed, as the case may be, for
trial before such Court Of the United States as,
By this act. has cogniznnce Of the offence; aud
then provides Tor the removal Of the offender 10
the District where he IL to be tried, in case he
shall be arrested in different one:--whch ques.
ton the Judge states to he whether the Circuit
Court Of the District Of Columbia. for the Coun.
ty Of Alexandria, is Court tOifhin the n.eoning
gf the act Of 1899; and fur this opinion he as
signs the following reasons: That the whole frame
Of the act, as well as its provisions, I" indicate"
that it has relation to the Courts established for
the States: tina. the District Of Columbia was no,
then in being that the Judiciary Act 10 no de-
gree refers to it; and that there is distinct code
of laws for the District, which establishes lis
Courts, and gives them jurisdiction: that the
Court Of this District has jurisdiction Of the Of
fence in question. but not by the act Of 1889:
that, to enable the Judge to act, there must be a
Court for the trial Which had cognizance oi the
offence by the act of 1889: that the kind of
Courts having cognizance by that act were Dis.
frict Courts of the United States. held by one
Judge, and Circuit Courts, held also in the States
by the District Judge and Judge VI the Supreme
Court. He concludes by saying, upon the ground
that the Circuit Court Of alexandria is distinct
in its organization and jurisdiction from tie
Courts established BY the act Of 1889, that /, is.
therefore. not such Court as by that act had
cognzance Of the offence against The u States.
1t is evident the learned Judge had not before
him the law OF the eth February 1901, BY which
the Court Of the District Of Co'ambis was csta-
blished, or he could not have made the mistakes
he has in his reference TO the Court and its pow,
ers. He calls the Court, the Circuit Court Of
alexandria: the law calls it the Circuit Court II
the District Of Columbia. II the Circui, Court
Of the District Of Columbia i. not such Cour:
as is indicated" by the Judiciary Act of 1880.
then there is no Court in that District which has
cognizance Of offences against the United States.
The terms " for trial before such Court Of tie
United States as BY this act has cognizauce OF
the offence" used 10 the SD section Of the act
of 1889, cannot, by any other than the most ri.
gid state rights construction, be made to "indi.
cate" that no other Courts could take cognizaDce
Of an offence against the United States than those
created by the act Of 1889. It could not mean
to include only such Courts as we're established
and organized BY that act: nor does the act state
that il means such Courts of the United States
as we're or should be held I" in the States" The
words quoted are applicable to the kind Of Courts
created by the act, the Jurisdiction of which de-
uoov, ,,of,,rp of H., o/y.,re spho.. 20