Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1834-12-04

THE PIRATES.-Monday last was the
day fixed upon to pass sentence on the prls-
oners recently tried and found guilty of the
crime of piracy before the U. S. Circuit Court
at Boston. Immediately after the Judges had
taken their seats, the prisoners counsel stat
cd that bill of exceptions had been filed
with the clerk of the Court, on which it was
intended to ground an application for new
trial of the convicts; and requested further
time Of the court to investigate and argue the
motion. The District Attorney wished the
gentlemen to go OH with their argument at
once, according to uniform practice. The
court agreed as to the practice of argmng
motions in arrest of judgment, instanter, but
were disposed to grant every rational in
diligence to prisoners capitally convcted,a d,and
expressed willingness to grant reasonable
time.
After the learned judges had inspected the
papers filed by the counsel, the Court then
stated that there was preliminary question
to be decided, before motion In favor OF
these prisoners, could be argued before the
Court. This was the question-whether any
capital case, which had been once tried by
Jury, could, under any circumstances, be tried
over again. This general question would a
rise under the clause in the 9th article OF a.
mendment of the u. S. Constitution, which
provides, ,-"Nor shall any person be subject,
for the same offence, to be twice put in jcop-
ardy of life or limb" The learned Judge in
tmated that this Constitutional provision was
peculiar to the Constitution of the u. States,
in common with the Constitutions of but two
or three of the States. That there was no
provision Of the kind in the Constitution of
Massachusetts, nor in those of most of the
other States. They were, therefore, fully a
ware that the practice had obtained IN the
courts of this State, in some instances, to al
low new trial in capital cases. Such, how
ever, had not been the practice in the United
States Courts, acting under the U. 5. Consti-
tuition. The counsel would, therefore, be
prepared first to argue this, as preliminary
question. Should the Court, after hearing,
decide that, under any possible circumstan-
ces, it was competent to allow new trial in
the U. S. Courts, to persons convicted capital
ly, then 1t would be for the counsel to show
that the principle ought to be applied to this
particular case. The counsel could then pro-
duce their testimony, and show either that
the prisoners had not been convicted accord
ing 10 law, or that there was new testimony,
or as the case might be. The Court, there
fore, intmated that it must be expressly un-
derstood by the counsel, that this preliminary
question was TO be first argued, and the au-
thorities on which the counsel relied, must be
filed with the clerk of the conrt, in season for
them to be examined by the court before the
argument, SO that the court might, in the
mean time, investigate the case as to this i'm
portant question, and be prepared to decide it
advisedly.
The counsel for the prisoners agreed to
this, and requested till next Monday, to pre-
pare to meet the question, which the court
assented to.
We learn (says the Centinel) that in case
new trial should be granted, it will be propos-
ed to introduce the five of the crew of the
Panda, who were acquitted, as witnesses, to
prove the innocence Of their late companions.
We understand that their aflidavits have al
ready been taken connected with this object.