New-York daily tribune., 1852-01-31
SYRACUSE SLAVE CASE.
decision of Judge Conkiing on the Motion 10
Quash the Indictment agliGst ths syracuse
Rioters.
ALnANY. FnsaY. Jan. 90, 1852

Decision of judge COnklIng or tnc No'ioh ="
Quash the Indictment against the syracuse
Rioters.
ALBANY, Friday, Jan. 30, 1872
1.-THE opening of the Court his morning. Judge
COIklLg disposed OF a motion 20 qua-n certal IN
dlcimenis. twelve u number, penang III Ihe Cout'
The Indictment IN eacn OF these cases is Tor aliluS
in the escape and for the rescuug OF an alleged Ia
elye from labor on the first day OF O;ooe!, ~ 'h7
On the second day ofthe term, motions were male
to quash the indictments for reasons set 0Ita IN the
numerous aficavts.
A. the request OF the counsel Of the Un,ei States
copies Of these adidavlts were directed to be for
warded 20 them, ano time as gwen TO them 10 oo-
tain counter sflidayiIs
On The adjourned day the counsel for the United
States objected 70 the reading OF the aihidvI'S on
the ground that they not entitled and time Vas
then given to defendants 10 supply the omission, and
to have the afidavs re-swOrn.
Owing chiefly 10 these delays ani 10 the great
number ot objections made, but partly also 70 the
somewhat dlscursiye line Of Argument which the
learned counsel saw III 10 pursue, the discussion
was Lot concluded until the eighth cay OF the term
have devoted time TO the examination OF these
objections en0 all the attenhon which tue bnef Pc
icd allotted for that purpose, interrupted as 1t has
been oy oiher dutles has permitted.
None Of them are unImportani IN their nature, or
so obviously uLtenabe as TO be IN worthy OF conil
deration, aId some Of them present questions OF
great importance, and III my deliberate opnlOn OF
very considerable difficulty The task OF deciding
them, therefore, is one o. great responsibility.
any responsibility imposed on me by law, an as
little dis pose voluntarily TO assume any, which am
permitted by law becomlngy to AVOID.
Therefore 1t was that took occasion TO say, az the
close OF the argument, tnst SHOULD the question be-
fore ire appear on further consideration to be such
as to warrant my so cong, might POSSIBLY deter
nine to Nansult my indictment to the Circuit CoDrs,
pursuant 10 the provisions of the act OF August 5!h
!sl6, CHI 9S.
BY the Sd section Of the ac, il is enacted, "TSe
District Court may remit TO the Circuit Court any
indictment pending IN the said District Court, If diff
fcult and important questions Of law involved IL
the case and the cdngs thereafter sh all be the
III the Circuit Court as 1t sch indictment had
been originally found and prosecuted therein"
The CT mnsl jurisdiction originally conferred IN
the District Court except In those fe districts IN
which no District Courts we're established, was ex
utmey limited, ard SO Il renamed until. by the act
OF Aug. 23 1912, u was exten1ei 10 all cases not
capital.
Nor were thee wanting sufficient reaIons for
withholding criminal jurisdiction OF these Courts,
for III addition TO he presumed mterlorty Of the Dis
trct Judges IN learning and aoiity TO ae Judges oil
the Supreme Court one OF whom, with the District
Judge, constituted the Circui, Court, It may well
have been though lnciscreet 20 impose such jurs
dicton on single Judge, against whose decision IN
criminal cases II Was Io deemed sdsls able TO pro-
vide any appeal.
On the other hand provision was made for obtain.
ing the judgment Of the Supreme Court on questions
Of difficulty and importance, arising IN such cases ia
the Circuit Court by certificate OF opinions opposed
And the law, II may oe presumed, would for that re a
nave hlfitU ui.Nif6I5CJ h1b 10 been Tor
the great increase OF civil business in the Girc-'.
Counts rendering it highly desirable 10 relieve tnem
from portion OF their labors IN criminal cases;
II was doubtless for these reasons also that II was
deemed or expedent to proyte Tor the act
ALREADY mentioned for Ire TRANSMISSION OF Gases III
volvirg difficult and important questions ol ID" HUN
the District TO the Circuit touft.
The provision may ,he ,efoCe improperly be re-
gaTdec qucS1 Limitation upon the ne JlrlS1ic-
ton invested III the sTlct Court, for IN ths con-
ferrng OF Discretionary authority congress DOUBT
less intended to impose upon these Courts the duy
slso OF so exercising their discretion rs 10 eHeSIi
ate the obvious policy OF the act.
That some OF the questions involved IN lnose cases
are IL my Judgment, OF the character deSighhel
in the act have already taken occasion 10 observe.
Oher questions not the less important fe froin the
counsel for the Defendants
sull. however, the power of removal being dis
cretlonary the Court, IN determining upon the
pToprety Of its exercise Is bound 10 look 20 al the
essential circumstances oi the particular case DC
fore 1t.
Consdtring the large number OF witnesses, some
Of them from remote places. who are sald 10 pc IN
attendance the Court for tie purpose ottes'fylns
upon the uials Of the indictments Which u was &C.
signed to try at this time, 1t would be mis oTtune
to rencer their attendance fruitess, by sending tue
Indictments 10 the Circuit Court IT, in resiity, iaey
we're valid, and ought 10 be held.
But | am distinctly informed By one Oh the coun-
sci for the United States, that an intention 10 orIpg
aIy one CT the Indictments to trial al the present
session OF the Court has been ABANDONED even
though these motions should De ceuled.
/, was stated also by the DlsIlct Attorney 70
have be en- his intention or rsnsly and az all times to
request the tfanslnis TO the Crcnt Court OF all
the ndictn ents Arising under the Fugitive Slave act,
except four or five which ne designed try at this
tine in this Court.
There is. however still another point to which 1t
is rroper to advert The seventh section OF the act
OF September 1850, under which these cases arse,
epscs that for any of the oienses therein described
the offenders shall be subjected to hne not excee4-
ne 81 eco, and imprisonment not exceeding nonins,
by Indictment ION conviction before the Dlstfic!
Court of the United States or the District IL when
such offense may have been committed"
Had there been no expression OF Judlcial opinion
on the question should have felt II to De my duty
10 INQUIRE how the thri section OF the act OF leio'
which have already cited, considering It 30 oe pro-
spec,iye can properly be held to embrace indlcI-
me1ts for ofenses created BY subsequent statutes,
and declared to be punishable 5nly IN the DIsHc'
Court .,
But am well informed that it has been so al
Judged after full consideration in the Circuit Colt.
for the District, in which the Court expresses vac
opinion that such Is the sound construction oil 'he
act. IL. -
| en- absoved, therefore, from the necessity o.
entering upon the examination Of the question;
The apprehension lntimated by the counsel, , sha,
by the Transmission of the indictment TO the tHCus
Court the defendants might be deprived OF ,h.a a
nights to insist further upon the objections ne} wv
make 10 the indictment Is certainly uniolhueS
The explicit language OF the &C! IS sun SUI. ..s,s
guarantee against such consequence ara II H,iS " 80
rot the circumstances attending the removal 49, y,
render it the obvious duty of the Clrcu, kou'' -
sse that defendants are not prejGdiced thereby!
Upon the whole, therefore, have csIns " Va. y,
conclusion tha, ough. to direct the transn,sstpn "a
tAess indictments 10 the Circuit Court. An o'N''
for that purpose must be accordingly eniefeo'
Syracuse Rescue Case-Deoision OF the .va'''