The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-01-12
TAs Henry Clay snA AsenAsee etsazahsaG Des-
aseer-MoetoM % 00asA ~ xnd1otAeAt.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT
NJ L. Ho.. I..A1H nakkn


Before tho Hon. Judge Bstts.
JAN. 1.-THE People VI. H. 4. 1aLtnsaw and Others
MIR. Mcmahon said that. The Circuit Court Of the
United States Of America has no Jurisdiction Of the
offence described inthe indictment because. frst ::
Is describes the o6Ae a. having been committed on
the Hudson River The court take Judicial notice
that the Hudson River ends 1t New York bay. All
above New bay entirely within the limits Of the
1927. 2. In U. 8. Vs. Bevis. Sd Wheat p. 1856, 1t
WAS decided that the courts Of the United States
have not jurisdiction of offences under the Admi-
rally until Congress have legislated on the subject
3. Congress have no right to legislate respecting
offences committed on navigable waters entirely
within the limits of State. The Hudson river Us
navigable stream, entirely within the limits OF the
State Of New York. The jurisdiction OF the State Oh
sey shore. Commonwealth W.. Peters, IL Metcalf,
1877 IL Towards Reps, p. 44S) T. Ihe act OF
1888 does not in terms extend the Jurisdiction OF the
United States courts to the navlgaoie waters wnouy
within State it merely authorizes the general ad
mirlty jurisdiction to apply to and take cognzance
of what it describes to be an offence; and the gene
raj admiralty jurisdiction does not apply to waters
within the body M e county, or &c n
I04. See Crimes, act March, 1925; 80 April,
1880, sec. IL; Mason's Reps, p 290) s. The
courts should be extremely chary Of extending the
act to apply to offences committed on the Hudson
river; because if the admiralty has Jurisdiction it is
exclusive and is serious attack upon the rights OF
State sovereignty. This point is pressed in sober
earnestness as it happens that both the State courts
and the United States courts have here assumed
Jurisdiction, and intend to exercise it. H-This in
dictment is defective in FORM and describes no Of
fence whatever l. 1t follows the words OF the statute
of 1888 in describing the offence without stating in
what way the defendants were guilty Of misconduct,
negligence, or inattenton to his or their respective
duties or what were the respective acts OF
negligence nattention constituting the offences.
In any event, the first, second third, fourth, fifth,
sixth seventh, thirteenth fourteenth, and fifteenth
81
felony, such particularly Is required, both at
common law and by the decisions of our courts. q
Chittys Or. L. sec. %. Arch. so and Ga. Star
kies Pr. Cr., 235. Regina vs.. Barrett Carr. and
Kinp. s43, sec. l. Carr. and Payne, l56. N.
United States Mills, 7 Peters, l42. State
vs.. Raines, 8 McCords Reps, p. $685. Hamptons
Case, Grattan $40. Commonwealth vs.. Stout,
B. Mon. 247. People vs.. Allen, S DEMO "A, 76) 8.
As the terms misconduct, negligence or nattention
very broad and indefinite by the of them alone
no indication Is given to the defendants OF what they
are guilty; and to meet such charge they must be
in great danger of conviction because Of their not
knowing what description OF misconduct negligence,
or inattention they are to combat. Greg vs.. Bur
nett, 2 Com and Kr, 343. Tennessee Vi. Fields,
Martin and Guger, Rep 1879 T. The offence IS not
set forth having been committed feloniously, or
with intent to njure any person persons on board
said vessel (Arch. Or. b. Ga. Curtis VS.. People,
Blunt 1919 5. It sets forth that the misconduct neg
igence inattenton to their respective duties &c.
caused the lives, &c. to be destroyed, without show
ing that such acts directly destroyed the said lives;
and under the principle Of ca,sa Yrorn,a aor,a
to spectatum, the indictment has no offence under
that statute. (Howell VS.. Commonwealth 5 Graft
664. Anthony vs.. The State, Is An. 3633 Ill
The Indictment Is detective in substance, because L.
1t indcts jointly for the same joint offence in same
count several defendants occupying different
stations Of employment on that boat, for
joint misconduct, negligence, or inatten-
ton to their respec tive duties without showing that
their acts Jointly destructive Of the lives of those
on board or became or were joint in their commits
g ,Ia-vr 10
dictment is framed does not contemplate joint neg
gence because the phrases Of the act are distinctive
or distributive thus" Every captain" &C., by
whose misconduct negligence or inattcnton, respec-
tive duties, &c. 3. The words misconduct, negll-
gence or inattention mean omissions i'll conduct
that is passive" Action is not implied. The terms
amount to an absence Of will in what they do or omit
to do; because if there is WILL then malice would be
will. then there Is inertness of the mind which in
each one is separate; because the inerness Of the
mind of the captain is different from the nertness Of
the engineerthtr duties being distinct, and the ex
emplifcatons of that inertness being different. The
captains misconduct, negligence or inattenton has
reference only 10 his respective duty captain; so
with the engineer, with the pilot, and 30 with the
others. Each Is guilty in his respective sphere.
Their guilt is different, and the manifestations Of
that guilt different and in no sense are their acts
causes conducting those acts, joint. When several
commit joint act not Of itself illegal but which be-
comes so by reason Of some circumstance applicable
must he indicted separately. q Hosack CHI 25 sec.
50; Barbours CT L., p. 1851 Thus several partners
cannot be indicted jointly for exercising their
shp sh aas eanss 3 am and sa1s
s2l Barbour's Or. T., 33s; Barbour, 2,0i6)
When several persons are engaged in publishing
libel il the publication of such be separate, they
must be severuly indicted. Barbour Or. 5, 33S)
So on Joint charge for receiving stolen goods, a
Joint act of receiving must be proved: Proof that
received in the absence OF the other and after
wards delivered to him, will not suffice. (Rex
McssiDgham Ryan and Moody, c. c., p. 2j7- See
Russ and Ryan 81. reserved 344 See Vaughan vs..
the State, 4 Miss. $50. Wengorpnn va. the State,
Blackf. 1861 w. The motion to quash is the proper
way to moot these points; for il the matters alleged
in the indictment are not punishable by law the in
dictment viii be qusshed. (Whenton's Or. L. l3l.
Arch CT. l.. CA So the point may in your discretion
for such nsuficiency as will make any judgment
erroneous given upon any part OF it, against the de-
PENDANTS. (BettS J. in u. s. vs. 0 Sullivan, 9Th Leg.
and cs. D. ~ citing authorities, U. S. Goodng,
IL WLfst ?. AGO.
Nj u c. Noyes then followed on behalf of Capt.
Farr Lam, Captain Of the Reindeer, and John How.
lett ingiIeer contendng that the first eight counts
Of tie indictment could not be entertained upon
general principles for the statute did not furnish su
cent To give information of what the parties were
charged with, and that the whole Indictment con.
tanned no specific charge, and must therefore he
quasted-
The Court then adjourned until tomorrow, when
Mr. Hall. United states District Attorney, viii reply.
Tammnny Society.
Among the patriotic letters received by this Soce-
ty, from distinguished invited guests were the FOL
lowing not published 10 columns yesterday from
want Of space -
Hon John rykr, Hon Timothy Joakins, VI. &
Hon linn BOYD. .J.skcr of of Nov York,
the Houte u Reps. Judge J. : Bo,sosth, Of y.
Hon. John WIGHT Comp. York City
troler IL y j. n. =, Morrison, | SCI, 4 Nat,
Hon &. lockhari. v. & 0f Com. ~ Ind
Indiana. times pa;:e Eac., IL Fn.ls.,
Hon willard Iyor, n. G ~ Judge + I. Ing Jham, II "
Nor yorb iolk cry
Gov. j. Levi Love, o. nd, Hon & :. Mallory. Z. =
BoT. J. a. Grow J. { oft "a l1tor OF ilocda,
for. Janes SI'tI{s T.. : HOl Ire lrr.cI %. u 1n
senate. -onni, j ll'r.
Bon Eote-t X. Carlton, GOV iarc.4 Siorto. i-ss,,
Z. g scI -te, iiOi. Joh.. {, alsier 'anal
Hon Colin x, niger - Al. Cosn., II \ -,
e. Of Conn Hou. Dudley G-r vel, x ~
Hoi.. Richard r sock hgr