New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-11-26
PENNSYLVANIA
The Christiana Treason TrtaIs.

ing ar 10 o'clock AS IN the case yesterday, tue
Court Room and the avenues lea1ng 10 il were flied
AT an early hour to-day. What was sceTcey to 6e
pected during this trial. there we're but fe white f.
males and cOiored people present Ia the Court room
this morning, although number o. the latter were
in the entry near the room, and in the passage way
through the first story We observed one venerable
Quaker lady present. whose name we could not
lean Police officers were again stationed at the
foot OF the stairway who KEEP! perfect order and pre-
vented a rush up to the Court room. very few
members Of the Society OF Friends present. and
these few were probably the friends and rel
stves of Cashier iIana~ay
At the opening of the Court the list Of Jurors was
called and the following named gentlemen, who
were absent yesterday, answered TO their names,
and OF course were not subjected 10 the fine of 500
imposed by the Court upon all who should not
answer by to-day unless delayed by sickness, or IN
ayoldable circumstances.
Hugh Campbell it was stated by his counsel. IS
absent from the city, and bad left 1T before the
reaire ordered. He had not been served with
notice. Excused for the present.
David Cockley, Lancaster; AorIn. X. Mcilyaine,
Chester Isaac MYERS Schtlylkill Solomon New
man, -; Peter Adams, Berks Robert Butler,
Carbon Peter J. Micher, Northampton Samuel
+. Stokes being absent from the city, was excused
forthis week, but must attend when he returns and
gets his notice.
Franklin yanzant stated that several Of his chil-
dren were sick, and asked 30 be excuseefor few
cays.-Excused until Monday next.
The fine OF 500 was marked against the default
ing jurors named above.
Judge Grer asked If the District Attorney was
prepared to proceed.
The District Attorney stated that he desired to
call his list OF Witnesses, 10 see who were present
and who absent. The list was called, and large
majority did not answer TO their names.
Mr.. Ashmead said he would now anaign Cashier
Hanaway.
j. NJ Read remarked that he was not going to
move to quash the array of Jurors but he thought
tins ought to stand uopn the same law as the
insuTgen stood upon IN l1g9 The act Of lS47 has
taken this State out of the general rule, and turns us
back upon the State law OF 1859. The point taken
by Mr. Lewis in the insurgent case was, that the
panel which consisted of los was not In accordance
with law. He supposed that there was an indict-
ment in each count III that case, and that 90 were
summoned on the general panel, and l2 from each
County in which the indictm nj laid. The
Court there sanctioned panel Of % only. Mr.. X.
then read from the act of 1855. He thought 1t was
his duty to read this act at this time that the
monlng OF lCS should not become precedent,
and he submitted whether this was to become bind.
ing. nthe case OF the insurgents the panel consisted
of % and the number of 80, 10 which they might
have gone, not exceeded. Judge Patterson,
IN deciding this case, went as far AS language
could go, 10 show that II had no application to the
law Of 1885, We therefore are thrown back upon the
Common Law of England as practiced in the trial
OF Horne Tooke, where POS Jurors were summoned,
in the Irish State Trials, were 500 were called
lie admitted that these statutes aid not apply
to criminal cases The decision of Judge Pat
terson was 10 place the Court in the same light
the Kings Bench or the Oyer and TeIminer, where
800 Jurors have been summoned for a challenge of
IS. Judge Baldwin has decided that the u. :. Dis
tIict Attorney cannot challenge peremptorily, but
until the panel is exhausted the juror being set
aside. By this means the District Attorney would
have his own Jury, and he did not wish this pre-
cedent in the other cases. He wished this TO stand
alone.
lie then read from State Trials to sustain his
views If this adopted he could see limit to
the District Attorneys challenge. Burrs trial was
referred TO, to show that the additional Jurors
could be taken even IN the case Of Grand Jury.
He submitted the matter to the Court for their
action.
District Attorney Ashmead renarLed that the re.
marks OF Mr. Read were irregular as there was no
motion before the Court He, Mr. A., had asked
that the prisoner be arraigned. II the counsel for
the prisoner would move 10 quash the PANEL tho
United States would agree on their part. The mum.
Der OF Jurors summoned does not agree with the
order Of the Court as not less than los we're to be sum
taken from Lancaster County whereas IS were called
Inc act OF congress speaks Sl and net 81
law but If me counsel for defendant think wrong he
Judge Grer-rhere is motion before the Cour,.
MIR Cooper asked the opposite counsel inesd to move
TGaddeus stevens said the United State, wsud agree
have the ,al take place in the County of Lancaster he
would the quashng of the array OF jurors If not he
Mr. Ashmead said he did OF wish violate the law by
admitting to bail in of treason, which was not sbaia
Mir Stevens thought required violent presumption to
Castner Runaway then srraisned and the CeIL of
the Court read ron the oil Of ei M" a LIE Tss
prisoner accompanied to the place where he stood to
plead, by ms wife, who chung TO his arm.
The Clerk asked him how he would be tried. stating al
the same time that Il matter Of life and death
Runaway replied that he would he tired BY God and hs
county from which the Clerk wished HIN safe deliver
ance.
to look upon hun. and say whether he chsi
longod HIM not His counsel, after consultation, SAID
Dir Ludlow for the United States said he Lad series
OF questions be wished TO put 10 each Juror after he had
been passed and accepted BY the psous Ihey aye
l. Have you any CONSCIENTIOUS ,crupes upon the subject
OF capital that would rot be0auseNoa
cOsscientousl could not find verdict oi treason death
terg the unshment, though the evidence required such
Have your expresses formed any opinion relative to
the matter be tried Are sensible Of any Preu
g. Have GU formed opinion that the law of the United
States known the Fugitive Slave law of 1850 uncon-
stitusa that cannot convict person indicted un
der for that the facts alleged IN the Indictment
aIeproved and TIE Court hold the Statute to be Consu
tonal! a.,
Have you formed expressed any opinion as to The
guilt innocence of The accused or OF The SeeI person,
ALLEGED participated with him the Ocnse charged
against HIM In the indictment :,
These questions gave use To long Argument - "a
which might very wei be confined to general question
To the one in reesence the eenstutoualty Of the Flu
etye Slave Law, MIR Read said he nor has IN
Court in Boston decided that Jurois Of HE and
death 10 be Judges Il law and fact but were TO
have sothrg say upon the lawhe wished TO avoid this
Question as IL was in conformity with the laws OF
Pennsyivasia. According to the ruling in the Bosten
thet eiore objected TO the way the question IS put.
Mr. Ludlow for the United States, sad thev wished 10
preserve the trial by Jury purity and prevent persons
getting INTO the jury box whose minds have determined
the nature of the cense advance from prejudice and
opposition particular law. If question Is asked !u-
ro whether has made his mind as TO the guilt OF "a.
of Juror and he was TO reply that he thoush
HIM guilty, ne certainly would not be Pefh'edo 50 ih''
a Jufy box TO try the care. -
Judge Grer sad-It the vagueness Of the question
that Was objec ted toas stood At would be dhics
for to answern. =,
MT Cooper replied that il the question put IN the
Shadrach case but they had no objection to modify 'he
question, and make Il more SPECIFIC.
MIR Stevens asked the Counsel for the United States TO
turn hs attention another point In the o1ecnoa-and
that was whether not their duty TO challenge hrst
and them after the prisoner had decided rs to his own
challenge whether they (ttelUnied States were not pre-
cauled -. n -
Judge Gricr-So far my experience and that OF my
brother the Bench CO. the practice as We are now pro-