The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-03-17


OConnor then cited the in 4th Johnston T. and the
reversal in 4th Maule selwyn, AGO. also to case in
Macarthur, 900 Now it will De seen that this notion of
the necessity of all things done by naval officers being
tried only by Courts Maral is to be found all in
the history of the English law on the subject We
consistent with the views take Of constitutional H.
berty as declared by the most eminent jurss OF England
as well as carried out in the Legislation of Congress
Before doing wish to observe the authority pro-
duced from Chief Justice Marshall, whom am well
sured my assoca did not treat with thing
but respect That he u. States against Bevins),
comes certainly from as high authority here az that Of
the English opinion, and how the counsel could press
and adv other things he has said do not
Know Tor he is obliged to admit that the civil tri-
bunas have jurisdiction over all offences committed by
persons not belonging TO the the high and
consequently that the deck cabin Of American ship
OF warts not place, which as it moves from place
to another excludes the cvilsw and confines all remedy
for crime TO the law martial This admitted then pro-
vded the vessel be on the high ! will show at
once that tn" case OF Bevns has application Whatever
to the present; the in which struck
my ear as If II was meant convey the idea that he Ian
guage Chief Justice part OF the opinion Of the
counsel himself The whole amount Of what was said
by the Chief Justice thai the extent of the Of
Congress was never to be questioned but its exercise
was the doubtful point the intended be conveyed
was that Congress even when they built navy had not
gwen Jurisdiction to the IT, States courts the express
ground OF the offence having been committed in an Ame
rican snip OF war, and without reference to
the location Of the ship II is that with
out looking at the whole context the true
strueion may be varied The observ atom is not
nnga 10 persons to the The use OF the
Die to misin'erpret what he says, and to maintain to
some extent the position that he say that Con.
ges had excluded the jurisdiction of the United States
courts from the deck and body OF the vessels the navy
But If he SAID So the counsel has admitted he said wrong
Here your Honor will find the importance Of noting the
variation OF the old acts from the 2lst and 2oth articles
passed in 1905 in the substitute of the "msy" for
shall" and that merely intended sanction the
punishment OF murder and robbery in the feet
where the action Of the civil courts suspended and
the intervention of martial law sanctioned necessate
This introduction may have seemed long but
cessarly led INTO it, and aftar all will not be lost
will be thus enabled pass over the provisions of the
w rQat
ty Now sir what says our constitutional The Judicial
among other things, all in law and equity and
admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction Mr.. o. Conner
eontended that there wele any admiralty jurisdiction
4h 83S. The 81 article declsres that all cases
except Of shall be tried by jury Case. of
impeachment provided for in the article section
subdivisions and I. The case of which complain
is in article l. section subdv soh o. You will
tho word crimes is not therefore necessarily limited to
that article but is intended to include all crimes wher
ever committed. This il, of course not by to
ted But narrow the term government" to regu.
laon in time Of peace, or punishment of offences cogn
that under martial law be had In the Act exclusive
cognizance is given to the Circuit Courts Of all offences
not otherwise provided for by the laws Of the u States
1t s commended that by the ais article proviaon
for the punishment OF murder by Courts Martial But say
deprivng the prior Court jurisdiction TheCrimes
Act, is said, does not extend TO the navy because il
could not unless Congress had recited in the pre- ambe
that they were making PROVISIONS for the government
OF the navy But that arises from his construction of
the terms OF the constitution, which have already
bstted, admitting that Congress did ever anticipate
the erection OF navy still the law applies it, For
where the law is broad and embraces tho whole opera
tons oil people or the navy, aud SO hen subject
arises 1t is necessarily embraced in the law; the
mere circumstance that particular class of
not contemplated cannot be supposed to cxclsde them
from the act But think there good deal of evi.
1ence to show that the act itself contains sufficient evr
dence that the existence of navy contemplated
In relation to the word Commander il is said that the
office was created only in 1887 But the term in
ordinary parlance applies Commanders Of vesres on
the seas And you will find from the articles OF 1885,
that'he term Commander" was applied to all naval
officers OF a certain grade.
Mr. DuER- Oh never denied that
Mr. OConner-The Crimes act of 1875 9th vol Laws,
3e6) requires no othe observation from IN an that tho
lth section more than proviso of abuntsat
ton that the right of trial by Court Martial be
taken away in the cases where it's exercise is proper and
safe. On the Crimes act of 1895, had certsinly
great triumph! 1t abolishes the punishment OF ma,iny
or srevol given in the provisions ofthe Crimes 30,
by the civil tribunals But this refers plainly and
testify only revo,s in the merchant service and the
emily aid the Counsel has is thiswhich readily grant
given in the $780, state that they cid regard
1t as extending to an officer in the navy. 30 with
all the counses flourish about the legislative exposition
of the law--he has not gained much And as to the
value OF Legislative expeditions Of the law refer your
Honor, amongst many other authorities to Sh Wheaton,
500; Ferret against Toy lor Crancb 81; 22d Wendell
l03 from which will be found that it of very little
authority indeed What do we say That the Court
Martial at Brooklyn ia sitting without precedent. and
contrary the provisions OF the Again.
the counsel has attempted 10 laugh down proposition
that this Court not inferior whose Jurisdiction
can be taken away We concede the proposition, that
this Court of special and peculiar Jurisdiction s
the Courts of the United States The must be
conceded Of the general government itse7 But is il
inferior government; are they inferior Courts No,
certainly not. They have enlarged jurisdiction
the nature of the government will admit But that this
Court is inferior one deny. refer to 10th Whea-
~ l99-as high authority as the consul can desire
Again. in Sumner p $751; the same principle repeated.
And these cases were cited before and required sumo
better answ err han smile. There 10 nothing supreme
here, except that power of the people which
we recognize AZ above ell the Instruments Of govern
No ~ on far flo
that its influence is not exercised and felt The hole
power and majesty of the American nation in thi
Court for the Of the rights of citizens
on the high seas. What would the counsel call o
Superior Court ! suppose the Kipgs Bench in
so mdicrous, that wonder not the counsel sought to
maintain his position by laugh instead Of an argument
u.s. will confer honor it, and doubt not the decision
will be honorable TO the court and to the high of
honor the lofty patriotism and sound Judicial perception
of the presiding judge. word in relation to Lieutenant
Gansevoort and close 1t is said that the commands of
Of the gallows before him he obeyed the order
The question then is is the order absolute usfcaiion7
deny that it, An unlawful order does not justify the act
which enjoins This it is said is hard case; but
which belongs to every of u.s. We are Bound
the sheriff or the the district arresting any
party-to do without deliberson examination And
The executive officer Of the law can never be jus
tilted without he has proper authority This then, the
down 70 the youngest Of tho fair ladies' who
have honorcd with their presence although it
would be avery hadhesrted Grsnd Jury that would in
dict her for assisting the Sheriff efecng arrest "a
laugh) The law, however, obges us to hold that an
lawful order is justification But we arc to recoect
that the Grand Jury have discretionary power in pre-
sentng and If there be ground That tho Of petit
jury would scqui', they may ignore the bill The strict
rule of law, however gives no Justification. And
mig presented in whchth conduct ohe inferior may
deemed guilty than that of his superior;
Grand Jury would then act quite otherwise suppose that
Of these commanders who like to be tried by
who feel and acqut, is without proof Of Innocence
We will suppose tina, he has dresmed OF IT nght-that
all the fancies which trouble the brain of
love sick girl had crowded the chambers of his spirit
with disturbing imegeryhat he could not sleep with.
out having half dozen pistols under his pillow and a
man watching them that they would not go Ell "A
laugh.) Suppose this Neutrality-suspicious., smiable hui
manea length comes to the conclusion tn at he should
thesnt lie