The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-03-21
United states Circuit Court.
Before Judge Belts.

United states Circuit Court.
Before Judge Belts.
March ao-THE soMgRs TRAoEDr-Judge Belts de-
livered his opinion the questions submitted W '"'
Grand Jury in the case OF the Somers as follows
GsrurNsr or rsr GRAND JURY lin my chareet 10
YOU on your in directing your aenton 10
the subjects which would come before you s'a.eu ~
bstance that you had cogn'zance o. ~ sa,ss and
fences in violation OF ia OF the United Sates ana
trable before the civil tribunals, whether comm;sa
within the territorial limits or the admlray ana marine
guard aud qualify that instruction as to avoid asserting
or defining jurisdiction over crimes committed on the
hi~h ,eas IN hoard of United States this
Cort wishing to leave that question, which had began
10 he aqitatsd deliberate consideration and decision
In the Of your snd b
enton Court TO the points OF law contained IN
them. These questions wero-
thew to make inquiry into any offences committed board
of American ships Of war; and whilst on the high seas
60 is it their province inquire into the offence alleged
to Nave been committed by Captain Mckenzie. or any
other persons board Of brig OF war Somers. COM
plants Of which are herewith submitted y
With these inquiries you submitted to the Court the
three complaints which they were founded. Judge
Belts described these complaints against Commander
Mckenzie and Lieutenant Gansevoort, and remar ked
that as the in the complaints admit
ted necessity the Grand Jury making any inquiry
into their truth was obvated Although the rlght OF
the truth Of the facts alleged in the complaints was I'M
doubted yet more consonant with the humane adm
nsraton ojustice to exempt the cZsnfrom the exposure
OF public accusation and trial when 10 offence had been
committed All authorities on this point apply with
equal wherein doubt exsts as to the legal
crminality of the act complained Of Lord Hale, Black
sone Chtty referred to in confirmation OF this
The request of the Grand Jury Ter advice was pro-
court to respond once aftor slight consideration to
requests but the inquiries in the present
involved examinations Of the constuonali'y OF an act
OF ongress and also the just powers and duties of that
court in relation offences committed in United States
ANIMATION by himself and of the business of
The court for that purpose but also the OF the
question involved in the inquiries by the counsel Of both
parties interested, to be necessary and becoming The
request of the court addressed to the counsel for their eX
animation of the matter was most satisfactorily answered
Jury had given their attendance from day to day, and
heard that able and instructive argument occupying
more than five successive days It might be proper for
the Court to remind the Grand Jur y that they
regard the arguments e the counsel addressed to
them in their official character The Court had merely
designed express its respect to the members OF the
Grand Jury personally soliciting their attendance du
ring the progress Of the legal discussion They would
remember that during the whole OF that PERIOD their
presence in Court had not been needed These remarks
deemed necessary by the Court in order to guard
against the possibility of precedent being taken from
OF the Grand Jury not to be regarded in way, as
waving or dividing the responsibilities Of the Court
which il was the of the Court to decide and he
had doubt that in propoundng them the Grand Jury
the Court The Court could not fail appreciate the
delicacy and importance of the questions submitted The
on board the Somers with all its painful con-
testify OF subordinate importance to the great questions
involved and which effect the administration Of criminal
Justice and the individual citizen and the gov
eminent. The question ought to be calmly Investigated,
and decided naked proposition Of law, and without
allowing the Judgment to be disturbed by
in this instance under increased liabili ties, and
dangers afford them extraordinary opportunities OF de-
fence Judge Belts then reminded the Grand Jury that
the matter had been brought before him several nsan
previously TO its presentation to his notice by the
Grand Jury, and that he had declined granting a
fort he rest q
had, in these instances been presented under
special aspects not involving the main points now sub
mted and if il had been otherwise. he would not
have hst pernicous action iaterposing
objection his full and careful consideration OF the mat
ter Before proceeding to any investigation Of the
juridcsl facts submitted the Court would remark that it
had hesitaed shrunk from the exercise TO the
mptter whom operated neither did seek
permit itself to exercise Jurisdiction which not
clearly bestowed on by the law. Neither was it OF
consequence to the Court whether they crimes
committed in the navy the merchant service. wheth
er the parties accused seamcn or officers The words
of the Court would show that the two judges in
session he'd tried offences of every grade and had
sentenced to capital punishment persons guilty of
homicide and other the high and
the question was whether the jurisdiction OF the
court extended and to be exercised offences
committed board the armed vessels OF the U. States
The TO that inquiry must depend m the import
and operation of the Crimes Act Of 100 and 1925 in
nexon with the act Of April 81, 1870 II the latter be
still in force that court could jurisdiction in
criminal alot ed to it specifically by OF
Congress. ~. States against Bevns, Wheaton.) In
this the opinion OF the Chief Ju tce
equivocay decisive that point whatever its effect
the other questions involved might be. On the part OF
the persons complained Of had contended nj That
Congress has under the constitution provde for
the punishment o offences committed in the army and
navy without trial in courts of law. ( That the statute
establishing rules overnment Of the navy 10 an
executsn Of that power in respect the naval force O
That the Grimes Acts Of 1870 and 1926 neither in
nor by necessary construction, embrace offences in the
navy, and no offences In the army except such
presy reserved In the articles Of war; trial in the
civil courts support of the proposition that this
had jurisdicton in the case submitted il urged-(D
That the judicial power Of the court under the constu
ton extends ali crimes against the u States committed
on the high seas AMI that several offences aft ng the
public peace aud welfare, must be proceeded with
by indictment and trial by jury () That the
Crimes act to this Court cognizance of murder and
manslaugh,cr committed on the high seas without dis
tncon OF public vessels (3) That the
OF Congress to erect Courts Martial and punish off
by their sentence an implied and not direct no wer
and must be exercised subordins,on to the positive
powers received for the civil udicatures al That the
act for the government of the navy under these
tonsl restrictions cen give authority Courts Mar
al try Offences other than those OF strictly military
or disciplinary character, and those committed and
brought to trial without the Jurisdiction of the Circuit
Court, or during war and time Of public danger The
Court did not deem necessary to enter into considera
b", 81 meS IT, Court was
rule of action in that particular case yet beyond
had power in fixing the construction Of the consttu
ton or the law; and the Court would, therefore,
tiou.ly forbear from carrying its examination be-
yond the special demands Of the present discus
sion. The only pertinent point was whether the
actof Congress of $500 confers on Courts Martial urs
dicon over murder committed board United States
ships on the high seasl Had Congress the power pass
such lowf Not only were all legislative powers con-
fsrred on Congress- but also the extent which they
were to be carried defined. An act of Congress in
violation OF the Constitution invalid and not obgs-
Tory on any Court But the presumption always
be in favor Of the validity of the law the contrary
FORT were clear and unequvocal. Judge Belts cited
number otauthortes to show tina
between the Constitution and the in question were
pspsoie that Court was bound to acquiesce in the
thory OF Congress to pass it. His Honor then read the
various sections OF hci Constitution and the clauses of
the articles Tor the government the navy which bear on
the case as conducive to the clear ma
turs and extent Of the powers thus conferred Congress
been exercised. His Honor here took a somswhat
heightened view Of condition of the Courts in relation
to these partcuns anteccdeu TO the adoption of the
Constitution. There instances Of the recosni
ton Of offences in the land and forces by tho civil
tribunals during the period ofthe existence Can
tinenta Congress- Congress exercised the right of rv
ing offences the high seas Immediately after the Con