The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-03-15
Chancellor Kent gross and pspabe bunder. But the
mistake which he fasten Chie

mistake which he afterwards 10 fasten on Ch
Justice Marshall Is OF character still more strange and
SUN more inconceivabie and venture TO sill more
impossible to have happened than the imputed to
the venerable Elk Chancellor He says that mistake
into which the Chief Justice has fallen thisw hen
the act OF 1900 passed. and the navy created
jurisdiction given to the courts of the u States not
the crime of murder as the counsel him
to have said but crimes in the navy "fow strange
the counsel that the Chief Justice should ven
tured such assertion without examination of the
laws which that assertion founded Il Court
Martial court of the u Staesl Did not the Chief Justice
know that by the act Of 1900 the crime Of murder the
high made punishabeT Is 1t possible for a
entertain the suspicion that Chief Justice Mar
shall when he speaks Of Congress pas'nx laws for the
government of the navy, that they contained no pro-
visions for the punishment of crimel His words are
era They made prov isons whatever for the punish
men of any crime committed in ships war; and thus the
imputed to the Chief Justice IT, til at although Con
gres in the of 1900 passed law regulating the navy
declaring the crimes and offences OF which person be-
sion of which they might be tried yet that they really
made provision for the punishment OF any crime what
That u.s. although they passed rules they omitted
sanction them Although they declared what the rules
were they omitted to declare in What manner breaches
of them nigh. be tried or what court should have urls
dc,ion OF them The meaning OF the Chief Justices per
fecty clear and uRambguous and when his remarks
properly understood, they by your Honor
and must have been by any lawyer VINO has turned his
attention tc the subject weighed the language Of
Chief Justice Marshall with due and due respect to
the intelligence and character OF that Judge there
is but in which they be taken. By courts
of the United States" he means courts of civil
jurisdiction, and that when Congress proceeded
make rules for the government of the navy, urs
dction given to the District Circuit Courts Of
crimes committed in the army or navy-no portion OF that
of is vested in Courts Martial This language them is
not that jurisdiction is given to any court but that
given exclusively to Courts Martial created by the act
of 1900 by which the rules and regulations for the 60
vernment Of the navy first established. In truth
the only difficulty in this results from the note Of the
reporter The learned gentleman pursued this part OF the
argument at some length and concluded by contending
that obvious that the Chief Jus ce must have gwen
the construction to the 81 article for which he r
insisted. II he had considered. (asd Mr. for ex
ample, that the general words all cases OF admiralty
and marine urls fiction were alone sufficient
Of the United the jurisdiction of all
crimes committed on the high seas, he could not have
doubted that az il was the intention OF Congress to vest in
The courts created the exercise OF all the powers which
that article Of the constitution conferred these general
words would be sufficient He, therefore, never could
have considered the crimes committed in public vessels
the high ariiy embraced in the terms all
cases of admiralty and marine jurisdiction But al
though cannot be doubted that such was the meaning
of the Chief Justice, and that there other grounds
upon which his language is susceptible OF rational
explanation, yet we are told by the counsel that he
could not have adverted 10 the provisions of the
act of 1890 many OF which show, he in the cesrest
that the intention Of Congress that these
provisions should be extended to acts committed in public
vessels To which reply, that il was never meant by
the Chief Justice snd certainly not meant he commended
nv us, that sader the General terms Of the
$780, offences commtc in public armed vessels by per
not onepabe to the military law should Tot be pun
shabe by the civil courts II So the of those per
would be committed the high with IMMUNITY.
We contend Tor no such thing. This single ohser
walton furnishes sufficient reply TO the criticisms
terms OF the 9h section afford srcng argument III IA
vor of that limited construction for which insist
II the terms OF the section to be literally construed
there is nothing relative 70 the Courts by whom the
crime is to be tried II says not word Of this and Tor
might he risd by court martial 30. il the principles
adopted by our opponents were adopted that coDs'Iuc
ton might furnish our reply But what Is declared 7
That all crimes committed the high shall he tried
in the District Court to which the offender shall first tie
brought But these terms be construed as insisted
by opponepts the right of Courts martial to try any
crime in the navy is taken away. What then is my infer
We are led of necessity, to the usion
before insisted on-tha il intendedto embrace all
crimes commit ed in the navy. They new would
left these general terms without the limitations necessary
to exclude the crime Of mntiny Tor instance the right o.
the exception so necessary to the discipline and very ex
sencs Of the navy, is proof positive that oil the crimes
committed in the navy excluded. The l2h section
it is said by the learHed COUNSEL shows with the ceares
evidence that must have had vessels Of the u States in
view. The section provides for the punishment of
slaughter the high seas the inducing of comman
der master of vessel to away with vessel II is
ana oy my ina
States vessels were alluded to- Now the rank OF Comman
der was crested only in 1897 and the ter m Is one OF
constant application to the masters of vessels in the
chant service content myself with referring to the Odd
section OF the act Of 1882 providing fsrthe collection Of
the revenue "that the MASTER owner commander Of
any vessel OF upwards of 20 tons buhsn &c" The next
section which the counsel relied is the 18TH which de
cares that any person shall MAIN commit other
specified offences in vessels belonging TO the u States
citizens OF the U. States" Now admitting it to be true
that by this jurisdiction is given the Circuit
offences committed in public armed vessels, why in this
section alone have the terms vesses OF the u States
been introduced when by their argument the gene al
terms OF the law embraced them1 But the terms were not
intended to be applied or so not meant 70 apply to
persons in the service Of the u States and liable to be
tried by Courts Martial Besides there not revenue
cutters at the timer The terms of the law fully salts
fed by suPposng that they applied not to vessels OF the
the gov The 10th section also relied by the
counsel declares that any person on the high seas
shall be guilty OF larceny or embezzlng the ammunition
orvi tuang stores intended for Of &che shall
be liable to q certain pun hment. The whole argument
here rests the word marines" class OF only
employ ed in the navy. Let II the argument b.
conclusive That th.orm marines plies exclusively 20
'oliers in the navy; hu. ny means follows that be-
there marines then he'd no navy. The
corps itself usually stationed land the command
officer always land and it is only from time to
time that marines are to vessels We had navy
during the war, but not in go and marine corps
was created during the war; and may have existed till
the passage Of this act-but the marines body Of
soldiers usually stationed on land, and is not necessary
to refer to armed vessels the high in order to
count for the introduction OF the erDbut let me call
attention TO the very terms of the section pro-
vdes for the punishment of the crimes of stealing pro-
visions intended for ines gunners, pioneers, but how
was that 'eamep were om'eda Did the government in
tend to the stores only Of the marines and not
those Of the seamen from plupder1 II is obvious
| that the law was meant to refer to marines serv
ing on the land otherwise seamen would have been
included. This verbal criticism must as am sensible,
be faguing to the court it is painful to myself but
he adopted by the has of sssy led
into il and besies such criticism is often OF the greatest
Importance. Does il not in The present entirely
ue the argument founded on this section by my learned
opponent dismss and proceed 10 his next argument
that if the law OF 1890 did include crime in the
then therc provision made for the punishment Of
crimes committed in the navy ll the sct OF 1900 and
equeny in the interim the crimes must have gone
punished Notwithstanding the Elaborate pre- ps,ation
my learned friend, which ensbed him to q. ser sgu.
ment 10 which the court have listened with p
not with instruction. he to have forgotten thst
that interv al between 100 and $780,
The CsURT.--The act was passed in 1899.
Mr. DuhR-I thought 80 your Honor. was about 10
remark that in l7g5 there adopted the
government of navy. The first public vessel built
10 1900 but il until 1877 that be said
tually TO hsveanvy. Well then, in 1907 storey a72)
you find that references smade by Congress law pass
don the % OF November 79j for the offs
navy and which is authorized 10 apply cesn
far as the might he appicab. Although the
that the Grimes Act of 30 did
in the navy yet bound to show that dc,ion OF
all Offences committed in the navy afterwards
vested exclusively in Courts Martial; and that we