The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-09-07
CT TY N E w s..
The Heary Oav OaIs.aaty,


CHESTER COUNTY, BUT HELD TO BALL ruERE Also
FOB MANSLAUGHER. t4 49, 4 n
SvrREhs CoUsr-SrnosAL TsRM.--Sept s-At 10
In the argument the application TO discharge ths
soas implicated in the Henry Clay calamity from the
custody Of the Westchcster authorities In court
anxious to hear the decision Of the judge as to whether
the prisoners sh0ud be held there the charge Of
Ger-they being previously bsiied By the the Uaited
States authorities Of this city for mansaughter There
delay of hour owing to the absence Of Csptsn
Talmsn and Mr. Jeasop who arrived about II O'Clock
The prisoners In this case presented petition to Mr.
ed by the Sheriff Of Wecheser county and were in his
custody on warrant issued BY the county Judge Of that
county charging them with the crime Of murder in this
That they were the officers in charge Of the steamboat
Henry Clay, which engaged in the transportation OF
passengers between Albany and New York the Hudson
1852 they engaged in with another boat and for
the purpose Of exceeding that boat increasing
Of their own boat they created an undue and unsafe
quantity of steam and made excessive fires on board
and continued them until the boat caught Rre when Il
was ashore in tho town of Yonkers In that county;
drowned and that thereby the defendants
had been guilty of murder in having killed those persons
without authority Of law by act imminenty danger
human life though without premedtated design to ef.
feet the death of particular individual The petition
ALEC stated that the petitioners had been arrested
issued out OF the District Court Of the United
states, and been held to bail on q charge Of
slaughter for the same act in having, By their mis-.
conduct negligence nattention to duty, ON board
that boat, caused the death Of the same persons
while passengers on board. From the return to the
hadeas the additional fact appeared
had been held by Of the Of westchester
county, IN which an inaustiou of murder had been
found against the defendants Whereupon the District
Attorney Of Westminster county had made his complaint
to the County Judge and obtained the warrant by which
TIE defendants were tried On the return
and C. 0Conor, for the prisoners applied for their
discharge, on the following grounds IL That Con
gress having passed law reaching the offence charged
the United States authorities had thus assumed juris
dicon over it, and that exclusive Of all State
thority 2. That the offence charged not murder
under the State statutes because there no charge o.
an intention to do bodily harm to any one. That it
was not manaaughter in the first degree, because tn
prisoreis at the time of the killing were not engage
in the preparation OF any crime misdemeanor, not
amounting to felony and therefore, that il the State
courts had jurisdiction the prisoners ought let to
bail i. Wells District Attorney Of Westchester and
r. Lockwood, contra.
Judge Edmonds appears on the return to the ha.
das corpus that the prisoners held in custody
warrant issued by of State magistrates charging
them with the crime OF murder in causing the death of
certain persons named and that they have already
arrested process issued out Of the United States
Courts for the same act a charge of manslaughter
There two important questions presented in this mat
ter one, whether The offence charged in the warrant is
murder under statute and the other whether 1t
Is the offence is not under the law Of Congress cogniz
able by the federal courts to the exclusion Of the state
courts. There is another question which it may be
ccssary to examine and that is, whether the offence if
not murder is not granddaughter under the State statute
The question OF jurisdiction is the most material for
If the State courts have not under the circumstances
co8nzance Of the offence charged the defendants
entitled to absolute discharge from their arrest
whereas, otherwise the question may be merely whe
ther they shall be set to bail or not. l begin
by saying, that I cannot recognize the distinction
taken by one of the counsel that because Congress
has not made the offence which its statute aimed at,
murder but only mansarghter therefore the State ribu
nails at liberty to take cognzance Of the matter IL the
State laws elevate the crime to that grade That would
be making the punishment and not the offence the stan
dard ofjursdction and would permit the State author
ties by increasing the penalty to obtain jurisdiction
offences clearly cognzable only by the federal 1t
is the nature and quality Of the act and not the extent
OF the penalty or punishment which Is to be the
of the Jurisdiction And in this act must look into the
warrant to what that is That sets forth that the
steamer Henry Clay engaged in carrying passengers
on the Hudson that on one of her trips with certain
passengers on board she caught fire and consumed
whereby the persons named in the warrant killed
After this preliminary statement OF facts. the
charges that the prisoners who then had charge OF the
boat, for the purpose Of exceng in speed" another
boat for Of increasing the speed" of their
steamer did create allow to be created undue
an unsafe quantity OF steam and in doing did make
allow to be made. excessive fires and did not
ordinary prudence in the management of said fires,
but though demonstrated with, Tor long while con-
tinued the same in consequence whereof tn boa look
fire, all the deaths ensued and 1t concludes that the de
ceased murdered by the prisoners by which
eminebty dangerous to Others and evinced depraved
mind regardless Of human life though without any pre-
dtated design to effect the death of any particular
individual The proceedings of the United State
authorities charge that the defendants by their mi
conduct Negligence inatentionto their duties board
the said steamboat did cause the death OF of til
same persons. The proceedings in the United State
courts under the law OF Congress- which thu
every captain engineer pilot other person employee
on board any steamboat, SC. by whose mi scondu,t.
negligence ipatention to his their respective duties
the life or ives OF person persons board said
vessel may destroyed. shall be deemed guilty Of man
ssUgher.-5 U $ Statutes at Large. 900 IL. The
proceedings in the State courts are under the State
statute which enacts that the killing of human being,
without the authority of law, when perpetcd by act
imminently dangerous to others evincng depraved
mind regardless of human life although without any
premedated design to effect the death of any particular
individual is murder And the question before me is
he in thp
State courts whether those courts ousted Of
their jurisdiction by that of federal courts The fact
that the FEDERAL courts have already instituted proceed
ngs and thus assumed jurisdiction is not mater al
this Inquiry; tor 1t is the terminann and not the
mencement OF proceedings in court which may be
pleaded in another. 1t is the judgment and not the pro
ceedpgs preliminary thereto which is bar to second
judgment. 1t is no unusual thing for proceedings
be instituted for the Of action in two diff
ferent courts having concurrent u sdction is
usual where the United States and the State courts have
concurrent jurisdiction for them to allow Judgment
rendered in to be bar to the recovery of judgment
in the other-l Kents Com $780, 1t is therefore, unne-
cessaiy for 10 dwell upon the consideration which was
pressed the argument that the prisoner may BE-
danger Of being twice convicted for the offences Tor
the time to raise the objection has yet arrived aud
when it shall arrive the several courts will be able to
afford the adequate relief against what would be IA
grant wrong The jurisdiction Of the federal hor-
ties the subject is claimed to that clause Of
the Constitution which gives Congress the power
gulate commerce among the several states Art Sec
g. and that which gives to the United States judi
cal power over all cases of admiralty and maritime
Congress does exercise its power subject properly
within its urk dctioD the previously existing authority
OF the State to act upon the same subject is
affected 1t Is only necessary to refer in illustration to
the question of State nolvent laws determined in Stur
giss or CrowDingshield, Wheat l22 But whether in
all when Congress does take cogDzance Of subject
1t is to the exclusion of all State authority IT, Is
another question and not per haps quite well settled
The rule Ia very well stated by the Supreme Court Of
this State in the of The United States Lahrop
IL John, II. 9 There 1t is said. "Thc jurisdiction Of
the State courts is in no instance excluded where they
hadIs existing jurisdiction except in those Of
national character. such admiralty and maritime
matters aud suits against Ambassadors and other public
Ministers CoDsuls &C. but the jurisdiction OF the State
courts j. excluded in OF crimes and offences cog
ni2abe under the authority of the United States and in
suits for penalties and fortetures incurred under the
laws of the United States But this rule leaves the
question open in this case. whether the offence with
which these prisoners are charged is matter Of
" admiralty aud maritime jurisdcticpn and whether II
Is not cognizab,e under the authority OF the United
States ADD therefore excluded from The coguizanceo
the State courts IT, Is not easy from the reports
ascertain where the dividing line is In some cases
it Is very faint and not easily dcfinable in cases
collision on tide waters and maritime contracts-Se