The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-08-27
Law Intelligence.

STAFFORD counsel TO the Consul. General Of France
ist The object Of the treaty and Of the acts OF Con-
several States and of the United States enforce the
specific psrormsnos Of contracts for maritime ssrce
on board Of the vessels Of foreign nations while In the
i'd The terms sailors part Of the crew. should not
be limited to persons who stipulated to perform dnty a.
ordinary exclude othsr whose services were
to be rendered either In aid Of the navigation Of the
sci, or Of the persons board aud, therefore, Brun
came within the provisions OF the treaty.
Sd II Bruni DO not within the letter spirit Of the
treaty his contract within the letter and spirit Of
the acts of Congress These acts novel In their
terms than the treaty, and within the consttu
tional powers Of Congress- and are binding upon all
courts In the United States without regard to the terms
4th The prisoner being subject to the laws proper
requisitoR presented to the justice to give him u
risdicton of the subject matter. The Consul General
and Vice Consul could legally appoint deputy to per-
form this duty It was ministerial in its character.
the treaty and act Of Congress- entertain the inquiry
and the proceedings before him gave him jurisdiction of
both the person and the subject matter.
Judge Edwards delivered his opinion the this
morning The following is a copy =
=, o. the petition Of Paul Brun alleging that he
deserter from the ship Philadelphia issued writ of
habeas corpus directed to the keeper OF the City Prison
ora @ MN 70 nave sne ooay 81 tns saia bruni be-
this writ return was. made, that the said Bruni
held in custody by the said keeper Of the City Prison.
by virtue of commitment thereto annexed. The said
commitment was signed by w VAIN Drinker, Special
Justice Of the City Of New York, and was in words as
To Emanuel Joseph Of the Consahles OF the city
and County OF New York Paul Bruni having been ar
rested and brought before by virtue of warrant is
sued by mo in Of the act of Congress- entitled
act to provide for the apprehension and delivery
deserters from foreign vessels In the ports Of the
United States approved I'd March, 1922 aud it being
found examination before me, that the facts stated
in the said warrant are true and the said Paul Brun
not being citizen of the United States do hereby
in of the said act of Congress- the request
of A. J. Borg Vice Consul of the Government of the
French order that the said Paul Brun be detained at
Consul.
said French Vice Consul finds opportunity to send
him back to the dominions Of the said French Go
vernment; provided, nevertheless that the said Paul
Bruni shall not be detained more than two months
after his said arrest these therefore, to command
Sc to convey to the city prison Of the city Of New
York. the body Of the said Paul Brun and deliver him
ceve into your custody in the said prison the body of
the said Paul Brun and him safely to keep In such
tody until the said French shall require the
said Paul Bruni to be- delivered up to him. to be
back to the dominion Of the said French governments
until he be delivered from such custody by due course
of law; provided however, that the said Paul Bruni
shall not bo detained more than two months after his
said arrest
Given under my hand and seal this twelfth day Of
August, ls47. w. WALN DRINKER'"
To this the relator put in his answer denying
that ha was sailor on board the said ship Philadelphia
stance that he had cruelty treated by the captain
Of the said ship and that the magistrate who issued the
said commitment had authority jurisdiction in the
matter aud that the warrant issued by the magistrate
and the proceedings under 1t, were irregular
At the commencement of the investigation decided
that the commitment was prima Jaeie legal aud justified
the detention of the reator that had power under
this proceeding to examine into any question Of
error, irreguarty want Of form; and that the only
question before me whether the magistrate who
issued the process OF commitment had Jurisdiction
., (rhs People vs. Neyins' l Hl, l@lS hili, Soi-note
contrary it admitted by the counsel for the reator
on the final argument, that this was the only proper
The commitment under which Bruni was detained,
purported to be made In pursuance Of the act Of Con-
gress of I'D March, 1929, which is In words AS fol-
lows -" On application of the consul vice consul
OF any foreign government having treaty with the
United states sPuiat9g ior the Of seamsn
therein named has deserted from vessel of any such
government while in any port OF the United states;
and proof by the exhibition Of the register oil the
vessel ships roll, other official document, that the
person named belonged at the time of the deserton TO
the of the said vessel 1t shall be the duty of
court judge, justice other magistrate, having
power issue warrants to the said person
to be arrested for examination and IL on examination
the stated found the person
not being citizen Of the United States, shall be de-
livered up" SO. "a Statutes at Large, so3)
The of Congress does not refer particularly to the
French government. 1t refers to any government
having treaty with the United States stpulating for
the restoration Of DESERVING" And 1t appears
by reference to the sixth article Of the treaty with
France, that she had such treaty with the United
states is required by the act Is Statutes at Large
279, art. 81
As the sole question is Of Jurisdiction the first
quiry Is at what stage Of the proceedings did Justice
Drinker jurisdiction OF the matter he obtained
such jurisdiction at all? The to this unques-
tionxby is that all the proceedings regular, up
to the time when the restor brought before the
istrats under the warrant issued bv him he then had
both of the and Of the subject matter
II he thus obtained urisdicton his subsequent decision
aud commitment of the reator conclusive far
this investigation Is ana have no authority
to review them.
there must be ian application Of the Consul Vice
Consul - which must be made In writing, stating that
the person therein named has deserted" &c ana that
ION proof by exhibition OF tho register OF the vessel
ships roll other official document, that the person
named belonged, at the time Of the desertion TO the
Of said vessel 1t shall be the duty OF any court
judge justice, magistrate, having competent power
TO issue to cause the said person to be arrested
for examination
There were requisites necessary to the regularity
Of before Justice Dnker previous the
examination: lst An application pursuant to the pro-
visions of the statute I'd Proof by exhibition OF the
ships official document that Bruni at the time of the
alleged deserton belonged to the of the Phiade
tent power to issue 4th That the said mags
should have caused the said Brun to be arrested
In proper legal manner.
The first question is Ms to the regularity OF the app
alton made to the magistrate
appeared the investigation, by the testimony of
Anthony Borg, that the captain OF the Philadelphia
called at the French Consulate In company with the
consgnee Of the ship and requested the witness to
WI an application for the restoration Of Bruni as
dsserter hat he filed up FORM affixed the official
consar seal TO It, and signed 1t for the Vice Consul
That this at about ten O'Clock in the forenoon that
the Consul the Vice Consul present
tha time That he a clerk In the office OF the
sulate and had general authority from the Consul
Consul, TO use their omcal name and seal, In
snch cases That the Vice Consul into the offic,
At about half past eleven O'clock and being inforne,
of what clerk had done, the Vice Consul expressed
his appreciation.
The original application was produced before me,
was In form, undoubtedly in compliance with the re
onisitons Of the statute But 1t contended by tn
counsel for the relator that II was invalid because
was made by the Consul through his agent slthougi
legally authorised for that purpose) instead Of benI
made by himself or the Vice Consul in person
What was the character of the application IL was
simple ministerial act, OF the most ordinary kind,
mere request, requiring neither judgment, skill, MOI
ability to make II As a general rule, ministerial
authority be delegated, unless there is some law
some rule of policy, to the contrary In this th
determined nothing, and proved nothing
did constitute any part OF the proof to be made be
fore the magistrate, and was sufficient, according
eyery rule of policy whether made by the consul per
SON. or through his duly authorised official agent Il
was issued from the consulate under the official seal
the consul general by authorised agent and stated
that the consul general requested &c. and after
wards ratified by the vice consul This seems to
was sufficient application by the consul, within tn
spirit and meaning the treaty, and Of the act Of Con
gress.