The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-01-13

Concurred in by the following vote
den, Ring, Wells, Hunt McGown Stewart, Wheeln, Bar
ker, Rogers, Crawford and McConaeyIa.
The Board then adjourned to Thursday afternoon at
'''''- ''''D TUG ''' G. T. MccIENACHAN, Clerk.
The Henry Clay and Reindeer Steamboat Dis-
asters-Motion 70 Quash the Indictment.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
Before the Hon. Judge Belts.
JAM l2.-1he People, vs. JnO. +. IalLnsan and
others-The United States District Attorney, Mr.. J.
Prescott Hail. in rising to oppose the motion to quash
consider it any part Of his duty to occupy much of
the time Of the court in discussing the exceptions
taken to the indictment, because he knew his Honor
was familiar with the law and the principles laid
down in several discussions in similar cases. Know
ing the Judges general preparation in all matters,
he would merely state, first, in answer to the obec
tons to jurisdiction that the law was sufficiently
explicit in bringing this offence within the terms Of
the act Of Congress, and that the objection at
an end provided there is nothing in the law incon-
sistent with the Constitution Of the United States.
The learned counsel then referred to the act provi
ding for the better security OF the lives of passen
gers on vessels which are propelled in whole or in
part by steam The twelfth section provides that every
captain engineer, pilot, other person employed on
board any steamboat, by whose misconduct, negl
gence, or nattenti0n life is destroyed shall be deemed
guilty OF manslaughter Yet may be that Congress
had no right to pass the lawif So there would be
end to the question; but he the District Attorney
took it for granted that no Court at Nsi Prius
would take it upon itself to assume that Congress had
violated the constitution OF the United States, unless
it clearly appeared that had done so. 1t would be
enough for him (Mr. Hall) to show that Congress
have that authority, rot only by the words OF the
constitution but by express adudicatons OF the Su-
preme Court. 1t does not follow as logical deduc-
ton, that because the States have jurisdiction
certain crimes, Congress- therefore, has not. 1t
does not follow that because Congress has jurisdic
ton over certain crimes, the States have not.
ha nictr 1T Than rafov tn fha If
Fox, charged with countelfeiting, reported in 5th
Howard, p. 434, and remarked that his honor (Judge
Betsy had given the same construction to the act
concerning the counterfeiting of coins which had
been put upon it by the Supreme Court of the
United States in Marigold's case az Howard p. y
even before that case was decided. The SIT
preme Court held, in those cases, that although
the States might have jurisdiction over certain
the same power in casts within their jurisdiction.
In relation to the matter now before the court.
he submitted that it was not important
whether it was exclusively under the autho-
rity Of Congress or not; it is part Of that
jurisdiction in which is included the power to re-
gulate commerce, and that also includes the power
to regulate navigation If Congress had the power
to regulate navigation, they have the right to regu
late it every where-the power extends to the land
as well as the sea. As to the point about the flow
and ebb of the tide, that has been long since ex-
poded. He referred to the case of the Ohio Bridge,
in which it had been decided that the admiralty
gress extends to the land as well as to the sea- in
matters Of commerce. 1t is question of power not
OF discretion. If Congress have a right to re-
gulate navigation, there is no limit upon their
discretion. 1t is for Congress to say how, and in
what manner, the regulation shall be made and ex-
ercised But this is not matter open for construc-
ton. The Supreme Court has expressed its opinion
upon this very act and has decided that it is appi
cable to all steam vessels, whether navigating the
rivers, the ocean, or the lakes, and that its COM
mands must be Obcyed by all persons within its
description and enumeration. The District Attorney
here cited and commented at great length upon the
following cases. which he insisted had set the matter
OF jurisdiction at rest-New Jersey S. n. Co. VS..
Merchants Bank, 9th Howard, 394 United States
vs.. Coombes, 18th Peters, 70; Wiring vs.. Clark, 9th
Howard, 46l 465. In this las case the Supreme
Court say that the act of July I33S, in all its pro-
Visions is obligatory upon the owners and masters of
steamers navigating the waters of the United States
whether navigating on waters within State or be-
tween States" Then as to the forms of the ndict-
ments, the District Attorney insisted that they were
sufficient in all particulars, and conformable not
only to precedents but to express adjudicatons In
setting forth crime created by statute, it is sufi
Gent to describe the offence in the words of the
statute ITSELF and this rule has been followed in some
OF these counts while in Others the particular modes
in which the terrible calamity overwhelmed men,
women, and children, in one common ruin arc par
ticulary set forth In some counts death is attribut
able to the direct action OF fire and steam; in Others
water in which the sufferers sought refuge to escape
the still more dreadful avages of fame. The
District Attorney then commented upon the
objection made that there could be no such
thing as joint negligence, and insisted upon
it that in practice such nattention might
exist as in cases where two men stationed at
point to keep common watch, and both neglect their
common duty by gross acts OF negligence. But in
this case joint misconduct is charged and in the
Henry Clay's case the indictment sets for that tn
Colyer, the owner, was acting master; that the
captain was also acting in conjunction, not only
with him, but with the engineer, pilot clerk, and
others Of the crew. that all these were acting to-
gether each in his own department, the object being
to surpass the Armenia in speed; that each and all
were reckless and that the consequence of this reck
lessness the burning OF the boat and the destruc
ton of her passengers. He insisted therefore, that
both in theory and in practice the indictments were
good and ought to be sustained, and he cited and
commented upon many cases in support of his po-
sitions. The argument of the District Attorney occu
pied upwards of two hours.
Mr.. Mcmahon replied, on the part of his clients
In the course of his argument,
The Judge interrupted him, saying that he would
not take into consideration the question whether the
law was unconstitutional. The only question he
would entertain was, whether this Court had juris
dction in the matter.
Mr.. Mcmahon then continued his argument, and
was followed by Mr.. Noyes, on behalf Of the parties
implicated in the Reindeer catastrophe.
The Court then adjourned, the Judge reserving his
decision until morning.