The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-03-16
United States Circuit Court.
Before Judge Belts.


The Somsrs' Tragedy AT the opening u the Court
TIL. morning, Mr.. GRIFFIN resumed his argument He
said that IN the obsev atoms he had the honor to submit
the Court yesterday he had to show and
he trusted with perfect success that by the law of 1900
He thought that the of the counsel that the
constitution of New York annued the United States
Constitution in this particular fallacous, for pro-
vided that crimes Committed in the militia, II the Con-
gress should allow the State to keep land and naval
force in times Of should be tried by Court Martial
and dspensaton oftrial by jury made. Mr.. q. then
spoke of the opinion of William Raw who his opn
ion intimately acquainted with the intentions oil
the constitution Alexander Hamilton as he was pre-
sent at the debates upon its adoption and was intimate
ly acquainted with the eminent urss Of the day and ira
of the constitution This opinion was that the
constitution provided that class OF crimes which were
without the Jurisdiction Of civil Courts should be given
Courts Martial that Congress had reasonably prov
ded that martial employ created martial law and
required martial Court And the courts of impeach.
men said Mr. G. before which the highest judges. and
the Chief Magistrate liable be impeached,
have the power to disquay although not to take life,
natural life He then alluded to the used to get
rid of sovereigns in former times; the death of Charles
the Court ofimpsachment by which, he said the Chief
Magistrate that had been delinquent could be reduced
Sy sne cam ana iaw mere cyPner ana ne
and imposing spectacle if such should ever occur,
than court Of impeachment. Mr.. G. contended that
the power given by Congress to Courts Martial was
necessary and constitutional enc. The second question
Mr. g. said, was, whether his Honor any Circuit Court
had cognizance murder committed board naval
ship He contended that the courts had no common
law jurisdiction; that they had power than the
statute gave hem and that the statutes had not given
the requisite power Mr. g. said that the second section
of the acts of 1889 gave jurisdiction the United States
Courts except where the constitution otherwise direct
ed commended that such direction had been given
that the branch OF crimes committed in the army and
navy had been placed within the jurisdiction of Courts
Martial Mr. g. then cited the acts of 1890 and 1900, in
support of his argument He also quoted the opinions
of Chief Justice Marshall Judges Washington and sar.
gean who he said had decided that civil courts had
jurisdiction over naval and military offences He said
tOc1
offences must be tried in the district in which they were
committed and that consequently implied merely those
offences that were committed shore that the act of
1900 the same subject nearly the as that Of
go and that, during that lapse Of years. the various
opinions he had quoted had been expressed they must
have been taken into consideration and if the construc-
ton had been at variance with the provisions of the act
some alterations would of course have been made Mr.
g then commented upon tn other acts in relation to
the subject in able and forc,le manner. He spoke
with enthusiasm of the deeds achev ed by the American
navy in its early days, and thought that if the
ton of the esing counsel adopted would be
the destruction Of the navy, asst would destroy all dis
cpline Hehoped he had succeeded in proving that the
constitution had by no act given jurisdiction to the u
States Courts, but had given exclusive jurisdiction
the Courts Martial in like the present He touch
ed upon the statute which provides that no man shall be
tried by tive Courts at the same time With relation to
Lieut. Gansevoort he took the same grounds as Mr..
Duer, and at half past O'Clock concluded his argu
ment.
After Mr.. Griffin resumed his seat
Mr. DuER rose and said that he would beg to suggest
somewhat different course from that usually adopted,
and that instead Of interrupng Mr.. OConnor in the
course of his argument in order to misapprehen
sions mistakes into which he might uninte ntonaly
fall he (Mr d. would refrain from any explanation
til MIR. O'Connor, had concluded.
Mr.: OCoNNoa-l have certainly particular desire to
ling to give him any advanage which the law does not
allow him If do. he will probably take that, and lit
tie more With all due respect then wonld rather the
Mr. DUER-You have your election, then, and cannot
complain Of the interruption
Mr.. O'CosSoR-Oh, don't suppose ] shall, if you
make them.
The CouRr- will be best for the counsel to refrain
from any interruption until the close of his opponents
argument and then he offer them, OF allow
ing to the other party the right of final reply.
Mr. OCoNNoR-Yes, or he could submit their explana-
Mr.. GRirrrs--we have labored for number of hours
to explain our positions and five have not rendered our
hope that we can do it by writing.
Mr. OCoNNoR then proceeded to address the court as
follows If your honor please, this matter under
stand have been brought before your honor by the
Grani Jury, as naked simple question of law arising
upon of the most and technical points that
be presented to the judgment court of law to
w.t. the question Of jurisdiction Upon that question:
certainly with very great proprety being question
technical in ITSELF but important in its consequent
your honor expressed desire to hear the counsel
who had been engaged for the respective parties alu-
ydnal accusers who exercsn. their right citizens
the u s, impeached Com Mckenzie and Ii. Gansevoort
before the Grand Jury, for the crimes murder and
manslaughter and upon the other side three counsel
who gagged to defend these individuals against
that cusation wherever made. It is true
that your Homer must have intended conne the dis
cussion to this pure question Of law But your Honor
designed also that the enquiry should be ample broad
and perfect-such would give to all parties interest
ed fair opportunity, not only Ofaying their views
to any views that might be urged by the I'D
party. lapprehend that it your Honor's in
tehton that neither the Grand Jury, the public
should hear on this OCCASION expression of person
al feeling any observations at large the particular
circumstances Of the which has gnated this
qury but that the should strictly conne them
n
that spirit and coming ste court as the adverse counsel
obliged to admit with clean hands-unmpe schable,
certainly with having made any improper effort to per
vert to abuse the Instruments Of public justcemy
associate and myself appeared before yonr HONOR and
with the design of exhibiting the whole stress and
strength and amplitude Of the argument in all its details
before in the opening thus to afford to the other
side all the advantage Of reply that could possibly be
necessary in the attainment Justice my learned friend
inverted the ordinary of argument preceded me-
cited all the and all the sections ofhe statutes and
of the constitution, which then supposed to be
sary, in order not only give your Honor views
freely perfectly and entirely, but also to enable the
other side to understand and to answer them Certainly
the manner doing This unobjectionable as the
s,irit in which it was done Surely my learned friend
in the opening Of this case, gave no cause
evnced improper asperv undue feeling disposition
to demand any thing but fair application of the doc
nes of the constitution and the principles Of the law
TO this case, without exciting passion, or prejudice,
feeling Of any description How far that take leave
to say-highy meritorious and praiseworthy conduct
the part Of my learned has been responded
to by the counsel the other SIDE leave such of the
auditors who present. and heard them BOTH and
your Honor, to Judge cannot enter at large the
comparison. The arguments are before your Honor,
and only take leave to say, that whilst the first
model Of strict adherence TO the question before
the courof most sudous and considerate orbearance
from any thing which could possibly wound the feelings
Of advocate, friend, party the other was, in all
these respects precisely the opposite For only upon
the first day. when perhaps under the influence of feel
ing which cannot always be controlled did the counsel
who appeared on the part ofthe individuals here
planned Of indulge in observations of description to
say the least ofthem quite offensive the party against
whom they directed. But after nights repose-
after nights renection-after the enjoyment of that
opportunity Of repentance which the still hours the
night so often bring to weregulated and ingenious
minds after transgression, and which eecually pre-
vents its repeion--nay, often leads 10 the adoption Of
course Of conduct that may atonement for the
regretted wrong the learned counsel into
morning, and presented painful exhibition of still more
cool and deliberate oensvess than that which mark ed
the conduct Of the previous day would ask your Honor
how far is possible that could have been enlghen
ed with respect to the subject Of this by the
utterance of any eulogum upon the character and