The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-03-13


hed under the laws of the United saes under
their argument there was no law applicable to it until
the 1900 and antecedcnt to which tine large
armament actually in existence. The remark then
Of Chief Justice Marshall although perfectly correct In
regard to the technical in 1890 there any
navy in existence yeti say it with great
but with entire conyict'on-not a sound remark. Be.
cause the navy was then practically in existence, and
Congress in passing the law of $780, knew that there
20 be navy and by various provisions they made re.
terence to it, and expressly declared the sovereignty and
jurisdiction United States over all vessels whether
belonging to public navy, to private citizens Another
consequence il shall turn that the view of the other
side s correct to wit that this law of 1890 applied
to offences committed on board ships OF warts this that
till this very hour the offence of ghter committed
on the hgh Seas is UNPUBLISHED by any Of Congress;
for when come to the law Of 1900 shall show that tn
crime not included in the provisions of that law and
this Is in express terms denounced in act of l7gO
It will be contended by the other side, we have
reason to suppose that 1t IS not within that law, because
part OF the applies the Navy. The
will be then unavoidable that that crime is till this day
not denounced in any OF the statutes of the u States We
submit your Honor please that those general terms of
the act of 1870 be held they relate crimes
and ieones known to the common law ID general law
oil the u states within the provisions OF the law, il
committed on the gh seas OF the jurisdiction of sny
particular State and by persons belonging any vessel
over which the u States as separate and independent
power has jurisdiction and that they be limit
ted or restricted to the merchant service There moth
ing in the law itself on which to found any such resric
tons There is nothing in the of the
which to support such argument Oh the contrary
there are provisions in the statute which negatives such
an argument and there are cogent aud numerous
sons which require that opposite construction should
be given And, let ask. what possible detriment
result from giving these terms the sgniHc
Will the gentleman opposite be SO good as to pcnt out
some practical nconv enience which will result the
construction for which we contend7 Some Interrupt
ton OF the discipline of the Navy weakening of its
vigor and efficiency! They show such thing -
But on the contrary every argument which be drawn
construction oil TINS law, aad that is to bring
within its powers all Offences committed by subjects
OF the United States, whether in vesses belonging
to the merchant service in the Navy the
And indeed those employed in the naval service of the
country are more eminently within the jurisdiction of tho
government to which the vessel belongs, than those
poyed merely in her merchant marine; and instead of
there being any argument from reason convenience
justice against it. there sron gest arguments
vabe from those favor of extending to the per
sons employed in the naval service the terms this
There has been judicial decision in which that ques
ton has been distinctly presented The only
ing any reference to is that OF the United States against
Bevns, in Sd Wheaton, 1885, This is the alluded
TO by your Honor the opinion the application OF
Mrs Cromwell, sometime In the month of January, and
from which and some part of the language OF Chief JUS
whether the Act ofl7sO applied to offences committed in
vessels of war on the high And is the doubts
drawn by your Honor from the words Of Chief Justice
Marshall that the venerable Chancellor Kent proceeds
in his first proposition to lay down doubtful whether
the courts of the United States this urs
dction over murder in ships of war; at ali
prised that question submitted to your Honor with.
out discussion and that being exceedingly hurried, hav
ing had believe only nighto prepare that elaborate
opinio that you should have fallen into the error which
with all deerence but all freedom counsel would
ture to mputc because the language OF Chief
W
which you have given, and have no doubt that nine
lawyers out Of ten. looking hastily at the cases.
and considering the high authority OF the Chief Justice
would have acquiesced in the latter part Of his opinion
that it is doubtful whether there any
provisions in any OF the acts OF Congress in relation
to crimes committed board ships OF Of the Estates
My remarks this point fall into two general heads
will show that this part Of the opinion not called for
by the presented and therefore forms part of the
Judgment Of the court and in the next place. that il what
said in the latter part of the opinion really part
Of the judgment OF the court would not bear on the
RQiOU n lpae L NOT do
eide it. do not deny that would have bearing
it, because belongs to kindred question It will be
cessary bring before the attention of the briefly
the particulars Of the case referred to- Bevns indc
ed for murder alleged have been committed on board
theU States ship Independence then Ting in the harbor
OF Boston, in waters of sufficient depth tor vessels
with free egress the There various head
lands however. within which these waters lay, and
contended the part OF Bevins that the harbor
Boston, in which the vessel lay not out of the uris
dcton of any particular State but the contrary the
jurisdiction Of the State of observation-disclosures under this
statement of facts the question occurred which sub
mited to the Supreme Court for decision First neither
in the statement Ct facts the offence charged in the
indictment within the jurisdiction Of the State Of
Massachusetts, court thereof and secondly wheh
it within the jurisdiction Of the Circuit Court Of
the district OF the State of Massachusetts, These
two questions discussed at great length by
very eminent and able counse and Chief Justice Mar
shall delivered the opinion OF the Court He the
second question in the and shows that the ssc
ton Of the law Of 1890 describes the offence being
fence committed but the place in which committed which
must be out Of the jurisdiction of State. He goes
show that Congress has not exercised all the power
point which might have been exercised with
the provisions Of the Constitution but that they have lim
ted the jurisdiction OF the Circuit Court to offences
med OF the jurisdiction OF any particular States and
he then the conclusion that this part OF Boston
habor not out Of the jurisdiction OF the State Of Mas
sachuses and having to that conclusion that it
within the jurisdiction Of the Circuit Court Now tn is
full and distinct answer to the second question
which involved the first and when these questions were
thus the duty Of the Supreme Court ended and
with the duty ended also the authority The that fol-
lows plainly obituary, and introduced answer
will look back the argument Of Mr. Writ the At
terpey General it will be found that he introduced the
gument that the offence was committed the deck OF
United States shpof war; it came within the desgna
ton OF the statute That argument not called for by
the question: and therefore the reply ii form part
of the iudQme Mt OF the Court He then goes on TO make
the additional remark that there no navy when the
law OF seventeen hundred and ninety passed. and
that afterwards there wss no jurisdiction in that respect
given the Courts OF the United States II that be taken
in natural interpretation the Chief Justice would be
made to say that the law of 1900 did not make any
provision for the punishment OF crimes committed by per
belonging to the navy. Whereas that very law
which refer does contain provision securing the pu
person belonging to United States ship of war. But
will be said that the Chief Justice did not regard naval
Court Martial Court of the United States. Can
impu.e such absurdty to the Chief Jusce7 Is not
Marital much Court Of the United states when
authorized by Congress- as the Circuit Court the
preme Court itself II not Court OF the United States
how can 1t try offence growing of the pee liar ia.
rsprudence Of the United States? Was the Chief Justice
ign GRANT of that article of the rules and
for the government of the navy3 Why the learned Re-
porter supposes that he really ignorant of it, and
increased the difficulty which belongs the
language OF the Chief Justice, in the which he has
appended this part of the opinion Now the solution
whole matter will simply be found in the limitation
ofhe Chief Justices remarks to the argument which he
answering; and IL these remarks be limited to that
argument which in all Justice and fairness they should be-
then will be found that the Chief Justice has advanced
nothing contrary to our doctrne for what is the argument
which he answe,ing1 That the deck Of ship Of
place. locality within the meaning of the sth
ton by which offences defined, not according their
intrinsic character and grade but by the M OF their
being committed on soil over which the United States
had Exclusive Jurisdiction; and the of
the section such, evidently meant to apply to
offences committed terra frmd yet Mr.. Writ intro
duoes this dea that although Boston harbor not
the high out Of the jurisdiction Of any particular
state but bay within the jurisdiction Of the United
states that the deck Of the Independence like
fort or arsenala place district Of country within the
exclusive jurisdiction Of the United States. Now the
Chief Justice in reviewing that argument and in that
connexon he says" why 10 this very day Congress has