The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-03-20

| arrest the civil writ-it would be no Plea mere
| nullity -,
If Court Martial has concurrent Jurisdiction that
court In which first attaches has the decision Oh the case
stearns " searns IT, Mass r. III Bems sseaTn' "a 40
Smith v. McIver, 9th Wheaton, 532.
Whether the be pending or decided the TACT Oh
prior cognzance by concurrent court is good plea
against the jurisdiction ofany other.
In the same court the tendency of another indictment
Tor the same offence bar for in the language OF the
great Foster Perhaps the bill last found adapted
10 me nature OF the case y and regularly the rule is 10
duash the detective one But even in the same conrt
that great Foster adds But at the time the court
take that the prisoners be not exposed to the
inconvenience of undergoing two trials for and the
same fact"
In the same court Of Swan Fosters c. L. 1906 is
o ne election OF the prosecution to take which of two
indictments for the offence that he pleases just if
two bills identical in terms had been return
ed by the Grand Jury.
In the have cited above from the North Carolina
Register Hawks, 49, in criminal il was held that
the tendency of an indictment in another court of
current Jurisdiction where the prisoner could be sent
taken by the Sheriff. fiat bar his trial another
county, and before another for the same offence.
The reason for the distinction is obvous-no inconve
nience arise from multiplied statements OF the
offence in the ceurtthe party have all but
quashed. Every vexation and Inconvenience would
arise by allowing the jurisdiction of courtto
be impeached suspended-suppose there dozen
concurrent courts
1.-THE Grand Jury now to find bill against Capt
Mckenzie, If the ground that the Court Martial
has jurisdiction it is odds to Capt Mckenzie whe-
ther the trial be pending concuded-a void proceed
ing being Of no service to him.
sent him with three advantages, for if the civil power
to take him from this Court Martial the there
being unconcuded, there could be decision OF that
court of acquitta or conviction, in whole or in part
The indictment in the civil court would be demurred
TO- and before tho supreme Court could decide the Pon
the witnesses would be dispersed and in OF its dec
son either that the Court Martial had exclusive urisdic
ton or that having concurrent jurisdiction its proceed
ings should not have been interrupted Capt Mckenzie
would 90 clear without decision of his on the facts
Such determination of legitimate trial would not, it
is conceived disable him to plead the clause Of the con-
n
would or not no Secretary would renew the prosecu-
ton after this dispersion of witnesses and Of court be-
fore which he willing to be tried which willing
to try him. and which the peace of the country had only
not induced to insist its jurisdiction, that being the
principle on which tribunal thinking its Jurisdiction
rghtful, yields to another.
have always from the first dsapproved the attempt to
interfere with the Court Martial and have to every body
stated my firm, unhesating conviction that Court Mar
tial was the only tribunal and if not exclusive that
rghtfu having attached no interference
was allowable Even in case of an inferior court the
superior cannot interfere till judgment decreePstter
the United States, Wheaton, 22l Panes c. c.
Smith jackson, 453; United States Wonson Gale
Having thus temper atey shown what believe to be
the law OF the case remains only to ask what i'll nc
tive be imputed to who feels confident ha to take
the from the Court Martial before decision, will
amount to an exemption of Capt Mckenzie from penalty
and legal verdict If were his counsel would regard
the proposed interference advantage, whatever
might be my opinion the facts to his usfableness,
risk. His acquitted before jury would equally be hoped
| as before Court Maral-in either case proceeding,
but legal trial. would furnish the greater security
When the case closes, will furnish the public with
testimony stronger than argument to show the utter
falsity OF every imputaton that has been made by the
editor OF the Courier and Enquirer A short time ago he
violent at being struck at when he had reply but
every license is to be permit ed his bad passions
san mpuations and garbng of proceedings and testi'
mony.
pronounced the paper of Mr. sedgwick in open csart
utterly untrue in those parts aspersive Of me- In the
Evening Post of Saturday ! am reported to have made
this remark of Cspt. McKenzies memorandum said to
have been made under the dctation OF Philip Spencer
In the Express day or SO past, was by inmation
charged with tamperng with the witness Mckinley, and
others when the next day that boy stated in answer to
question, that he had been spoken TO by but
as to his testimony In that paper the question was put
in the mouth of Capt Bolton, and double fabrication
praced to avoid the rebuke for the previous days ed
| torial.
The paper published by you yesterday, was dropt
at your Office my way Court having leisure 10
make comment on any thing.
thus calmly dismiss this matter for the present until
replies from the Secretary Of the Navy sdavits OF
emen here and letters from well known citizens Of Bal
more shall enable at the close of the testimony, TO
properly expose the enormty OF The savage and false
duction Of an honorable stranger, without cause in
moment when excitement might make groundess asper-
| tons believed. am, sir, very respectfully,
| WILLIAM H. NORRIS,
| Judge Advocate.