The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-01-31
The Syracuse Resc ue Case.
UD0E coNKLIN's DECISION ON THB MOTION TO QUAsH
THE INDICTMENTS AGAINST THE RIOTERS.

The Syracuse Rssc ue Case.
JUDGE coNKLINs DEcIsloN ON THB MOTION TO QUAsH
THE INDICTMENTS AGAINST THE RIOTERS.
ALBANY, January 80, 1852
II will be seen by the following that the Syracuse
riot cases have been sent by Judge Conkii for a
hearing before Judge Nelson, in tho Circuit Court
at Canandaigus In June next At the opening OF
the Court this morning. Judge Conkin observed that
this berg the time designated by him at which he would
endeavor to dispose OF motion to quash certain ndlc
ments twelve in number, depending in the Court, he
would now proceed to do The indictments in each Of
these for aiding in the escape also for the
rescue Of sleged fugitive from labor service
the first day Of October last at city Of Syracuse On
the second day Of the term motions made quash
tho indictments for set forth In the numerous
adavits At the request Of the counsel the United
States copies Of these sdavts directed TO for.
ded to them, and tine was given to the to obtain
counter adavts On the adjourned day the counsel the
United States objected to the reading the svits upon
which the motion founded the ground that they
were rot entitled and time then given TO defendants
to supply this emission ana to have the sdavils
ovins chiefly to these delays and the great
number Of objections made to these indictments but
partly also to the somewhat dscursive line of
which the learned counsel at to pursue the discus
sion was not concluded until the eighth DAY of the
have devoted time to the examination Of these ohsc
tons and all the attention which the brief period allotted
for that purpose interrupted IL has been by other
duties has permitted None Of them are uni MP srtant
in their nature obviously bic az to be un-
worthy Of considerations and OF them preSe quss-
tons u great Importance and 10 deliberate opnion
OF very considerable difficulty The task OF deciding
them therefore Is one OF great responsibility But While
have no right disposition 10 eyade aDy responsibility
Imposed upon me by law, am "a LITTLE dspored, voun-
tarily, to any which am permitted by Law
becomip2ly TO avoid Therefore was that took o,ca-
sion a1 the cloe OF the argument to state that should
the question before further cousi srstion
TO be such AS TO warrant my doing might possibly
determine to transmit the indictments the Circuit
Court pursuant TO the provisions the net August
enacted -
The District Court msy remit to the Circuit Court any
indictment riding in Tho SAID District coars II sasis
and iInpo snt qpetens Of law involved In the
IN ne Circuit CoHlt such indictments had been
The criminal jurisdiction originally conferred the
District Court except Ia the few districts in which
circuit courts established remslJ limited
and 30 It remained till by the Of August 23 1872 it
was extended TO all caaes oapssl. Nor there
wanting sufcient for Withholding unrestricted
criminal jurisdiction OF those courts; for in addition
the interority of the dittrct judges learn
Ing ana ability to the judges of the Supreme Court
o them together with the district judge constituted
the disrriot court It may well have oaen thought in
ciscieet TO impose such jurisdiction on slage udse
whose decirion iu criminal IL wa. not eees aiyi
sable to provide appeal from while the maud
provision Taa made for obtaining the Judgment u
Supreme Court upon questions OF difficulty and i'm
portahce arising in sucn eases in the Circuit Court by
certificate OF opinions opposed And the iaw, il may
De presumed, would for those reasons, hav remained
unehsnptd 1ad II not been for the ersatocrease Of
civil business In the Circuit Courts rendering nghly
desirable to relieve them from porSion Of their
IL criminal 1t doubtless for same
sons also that 1t was deemed expeient to
provide for the already th transmits
sion Of cases involving difficult sad por. ant questions
al Law. from the district to the circuit court Tie
provisions may therefore properly bs regarded a,
quas, limitation upsu the jnrisii, on invested
In the District Court for in thus conf-rrug de,cre-
tonary authority, Ccngres, doubtless intended to i'm
pose these the duty also exercising til sr
discretion to effectoate the obsiou, policy the act
That eone Of the questions involved ia these case.
are in judgment OF the character desg ed in the
act, ave already taken occasion mention 0lner
quesiors not the iefs important fell from the counsel
for the dfeodsnt sti however, the power removal
being dcretionary the court in determining upon the
prop elv te exercise i bound look TO a essential
circumstances Of the particular before It, Consi-
osrng the large number Of fvtnsssessome o them
remote plccCTho said 70 be in Attendance tn.
court for the purpoee tesyin upon the tris OF tn
II ulsuts which il designed try at this
would b. misfortune to their attendance fruit
less By sendLg the indictments 80 the Circuit Court H.
In reality they valid ana ought TO be held But
am distinctly informed by OF the counsel for the
United States, that sh ntentioR 60 bring any tns
oetuns to trial 81 The session OF ths has
been abspd ned even though these motions should be de-
ried IL stated aso by the District Attorney, have
teen his intention originally and at eli tines to relUes
the transmission to the Circuit Court oil The indct-
mnts arising under the Fugitive Slave act four
y five. which he desired try al this tune in this
uit. There IT, however etl another point TO which
proper 8dverti the seventh section Of the act OF
September 1850 under which there agise Ii
Gets that by Of the oerces therein described tho
tIrrder shall be subjected hne exceeding 5000,
aud nprironmeut not exceeding ix montns BY indct-
n.nt or conviction before the Dstrict Couct Of tas
ueu eWRs TOT Ine olstilce in Tnlon sucn ohence may
have been ccpuitted Had there been 70 expression Of
judicial opinion the question, should have con-
tideied it to have been my duty ia Inquire |
Why the third section of the ect OF 1916 WHICH |
have siready cited considering it bo prospective
cnn properly % held to embrace indictment for offences
created BY subsequent statutes and thsron de.
csred 10 be- punishsbe only ia the District Courts But
an well Informed that il has been adirdged in full
consideration in the Circuit Court in the district in
which he expresses the opr ion bnt such the sound
construction OF the act sbsolTed therefore FROM
the necessity Of entering the examination Of the
questiou The apprehension intimated by the counsel
II at by the transmission of the irdict the Cir
cult Court the defendants might b. deprived Of their
night tc insist further upon the obi scsions they here
make 70 the Indictment n certainly unfounded. The
explicit language of the act ia sufficient guaranty |
against such coneequence; and II not the cir
cuntsuces sttepdin0 the removal would render It the
obyicus duty u the Circuit Court that defend.
ants priudeed thereby upor the whole there.
fore bave to the conclusion that uSAt TO IL.
rect the Transmission Of the Indictments the Grcui6
CtoI FOR that purpose IL b. accordingly entered