The New York herald., 1851-09-12
IMPoR RTANT ECIs

Before Hon. Judge KING.
IMPoR RTANT DECISION.
SEPT S-in the Mater OF the Application Of Charles
Adonis tor his discharge upon Habeas Corpus. This
case, which had been argued by Mr.. James Ridg-
way the part of the United States, and Mr..
Barsow for the appl cant, was this day decided by
Judge King, who gave the following decision =
Upon the of the writ herein it appears that
the petitioner is detained in custody, boar tho
United States ship North Carolina, in the harbor
of New York, by virtue Of the. finding of court
martial, which sentenced him to solitary c0nfne-
ment, Without irons, on board the United States
receiving chip North Carolina, at the Brooklyn
Navy ard, for tho space OF three moaths, for mu-
tinous conduct, and that the time of his imprison-
ment has yet expired The petitioner in his ira
verse admitting the truth Of the return, alleges
that his mprs0n uent 10 una wfu, because the time
he has been detained in pursuance of said sentenoe
exceeds the term of thirty days after the arrival in
port Of the United States of the vessel on board
which be serving; that the period for which he
enlisted expired Oh the ninth day OF April, Iool ho
being then az sea, board the United States brig
Dolphin, which vessel arrived in the port of Nov
York on 9th June, 1851, more than thirty days
hobeas cmpus herein having been retarned August
%, 1851 The petitioner relies for his discharge
upon the provis ions of the act Of Congress passet
February 20, 1855 Statutes at Large, p 72j-
entitled IAN act to amend the act entitled an act
to provide for the enlistment of boys for the naval
service, and to extend the term of enlistm snt Of
seamen," approved March z 1887, by which it is
enacted the prOvs .ons Of the act amended, whi,h
authorize the detention of any person enlisted for
the navy ater the expiration of the enlistment
til the return Of such person to the United States,
shall be unders TODD and construed 10 authorize and
provide for the detention OF such person until the
arrival of the vessel in wh ID he shall bo detained
at port in the United States, and until he shall
have received his regular disc ge, by order of the
Secretary Of the Navy-provided that such deter
tion shall ot exceed .he term Of thirty days feom
the time Of the arrival Of said vessel in port of tho
United States. The lct so amended q Statutes at
Large. p 1887 provided, that when the time of
II
pire while he was on board any OF the public ves-
sells Of the United States, employed on foreign
seryi,e, it should be the duty of the COM
manding officer OF the feet, squadron, or vessel
in which such person should be 60 send him to the
United States, in public other vessel ualess
his detention should be essential to the public in
teiests, in which case the said oi,er might detain
him nrti the vessel ia which he should be serving
should to the United ii ates; and IL was IN ado
the duty Of tee officer immediately 70 report to the
Navy Department such detention, and the causes
thereof. The act further provided that such por-
cons as might be detained after the expiration of
their enlistment should he subject ia all respects to
the laws AID regulations for tie COVE ment Of the
navy, uutl their return TO the United states; bat
snouiu, VIII lst 60 detained, receive addition Of
one-iour.h to their 70 ;mer pay 1t is obvious tha.
these acts contemplated solely the enla gement, IN
certain cases, of the period for which the seaman
enlisted and during which he was bound to serve,
and in terms rendered him liable. during such ex-
tended pcr.d Of service, to the regulations Of the
naval service. This evident meaning Of the act is
affirmed by tho supreme Court OF the United
States, in Wilkes v Dinsman,7 Uoward's X 80;
which, extending the provisions of the statute to
marines as well as s.amep, held the commander
OF the u. ). exploring expedition justified in in
hictipg punishment according to the raes and re-
gulatiobs OF the navy, upon marine, whose term
of enlistment expired UPON a foreign station, and
who, after ssch expiration refused to do daty, al
though bis commanding officer deemed 1t essential
to the public interests require his further ser
vices. The sean an detained under the provisions
Of these statutes, is in fact, treated having en-
listed for the extended period non ,ne in the act.
entitled to increased pay, but bound to the sano
servi.e as under his original enlistment, aud tho
only eject Of the proyiso in the act is to prevent
this extension OF the orr snsl enlistment continuing
more thaa thirty days after the arrival Of his ship
in port of tie United states. The petitioner in
this is detained by virtue OF the acts above
quoted, but as a convict under sentence of court
martial, for crime peculiarly cognizable by such
court; and 1t would be repugRant TO the provi-
sops of the statute for the regulation OF the navy
and to the jurisdiction therein conferred on courts
martial, to cold that tho period Of original enlist
ment, or tho extended period OF service provided
for by the at above quoted, was to bc the measure
OF imprisonment inflicted as n punishment for
crimes against the naval code. In the act
tor the better government OF the navy of tho
lifted states, passed April 2jd, 300, 2statu,ss at
Lsige, y i1) CERTAIN criinesare enumerated which,
" Eeh Committed by persons in the navy, subject
them TO trial before court martial, and TO tho
teuteuee OF such cOur,; and anong Others the o9ace
Tor which The petitioner was sentenced, is mado
punishable with death. or such other punishment
asa court martial shall nflict. L do not find in
the statute any rcstri ;tion upoa tn, enlarged di
erehon in relation to punishmept thus Goa erred
upon thtse courts, save the approval Of the officer
cIcefrg the court and the constitutional provision
againit cfu. or unusual punishments, certainly
aothii which limits the duration of Imprisonment
,s The penalty of an offence to the period of tho
reIdtrs enlistment; and it would be absurd to
ooio That the penalty Of a crime sh )ui vary with
the continuance of the criminals term Of service
Under his contract when il is equally yiolatioo of
The law at whatever period of his enlistment it nav
have been commi ted. question similar ia its
Iatuie was II eseuted for the decisi On of the SUI
pEtme Court OF the STATE Of Massachusetts, ia ths
case OF walker VS.. Morris vol 3, American uist,
Apiii, looO. Upon the return to writ Of hibsas
tof11s, II appeared that the petitioner hal been
guilty Of mutinous conduct the ID January Iryy0:
that on the ith Of January charges we're pfeferred
sgainst him The period of hts enlistment elapsed
on the 9th Of January, his ship being then in Boz
ton b9i bor, and On the 18th of January a court
martial was ordered to try him. Ills discharge
from arrest whilst awaiting his trial was claimed,
on the ground that his detention for an cause ws
unlawful after the expiration OF his ealistmeut.
The justice before whom The habcgs cDrpts was re-
80 S6sic, ~..h the Concurrence Of bis brethren,
held that charges having been preferred araint him
before his enlistment had ended, the court subso-
quebily convened had jurisdiJtioa to try him upon
those charges, and he was remauded for trial, anA
was subsequently tried. This case seems decisive
Of the presents for, il the court had Jurisdiction to
Try after the enl sment ended, it had iurisdc-
ton TO sentence to the extent pr Jvlded by law IL
sIlearirg TO me that the petitioner, Charles Adams,
Is detained custody under the sentence Of court
oi competent jurisdiction, directing his imprison-
inert for period not yet expired, he nus be re.
naIded to the same custody from wnich he has
been brought.
IA. ryuu~ .u.s