The Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1852-1853, 1853-10-19


try Collier fnr sn offence committed IN no
piah, IN no Judicial DISTRICT.
u as rlaimed by the Attorney Geaeral
that lhe law requiring this plrnee 10 be
sTird IN l.r'uisanA or Oregon Is yiFtually
fepraled. i Blqg ks. although lhAt prop
nsiiicn Is anything bHt clear ~ ny Iain !.
but suppose Il j. rrpsSled, where then must
Ne be iJisdl Why, s4ys the Attorney Gems.
ErSl. IN tle District Court OF the Uaited
States for The NoRTasRS DisTEicr oF CAtts
FoRSIF FiiclF has jurigdisti9n efthes gsrs
siiUrial lihsits . = hich lIhn ollenfe aSks con.
inisied, B9t where is the law which says
Coaisg OF any other offender who has com
mitt4l DO otfspco without the limits ef any
isaaie, or asa Judicial District. shall be
tried in the NcRrtiERS or SoU1EERx DIsTRIcT
Of f0aliferaia, or in any. District. have
Reithef been atls 10 find the law nor to eon-
prehend che ioeceiof the rsas oning oq that
subjeest The learned District Attorney
foF the Westrrh District Of Pea 1sylvanis,
ip tlle arganasHt. elaimed that Upper Cal
tosniWor Oregon formed oue Judicial Dis
uiet BY tise set OF l849. foI the trial Of Grim.
Ipais. Bat the answer 10 that consists in
Ihe Act TINT the very reasons for making
these eiiehces committed in Caliiornpt tria-
bis.in louisiana or Oregon was that CalifOr-
pia formed no part of Judicial District it
vas without any STATE or any JUDICIAL Dts
rzIeT; and here the place Of trial was PRKYI
pgstY ascertained by Congress, and was in
the District Court Of LOUISIANA or the Su-
preRls Qourt OF Oregon. N il. a-.a .
hsCan3EeSs had said that all offences COM
Mitted on the hig seAs or elsewhere. should
hs tsed in Ohio would that make the high
seas and every where else part Of the Dis.
lEict Of Ohio, or rather, would not the very
legislation itself shows that these places were
without any judicial District. do not
lsem it important to decide whether the
place Of trial must be ascertained prtvIo
10 the commission of the offence, or only to
fiie trial, although | have very decided
opinion ON the subject. 1t may be said il
tie place must be aseertaned previous to
the commission Of the offence that State
comprising one or more JUDICIAL Districts
could not be further divided. Ohio is one
Judicial l'istFic!, crime is committed in
the State. The State is afterwards divided
into twa Ristricts--wherc shall the offender
be tried 1.-The is tried in the State at all, he
is tried within the limits Of the JUDIcT L
pisTRIcT ia which he committed the offence.
When the number of Districts in State is
ksseped. then the question Ray be fairg
made. sase sast dv ,AHa8tf Be- .H#a
,lItis enough for the purpose of this de-
eision to say that my opinion is that the
law as it now stands does not authorize the
tFial of Collier in the Northern District of
California and that that Court has no juris-
AictbAH Of his person, "a 81. as
Some other questions have been suggest
ed on the hearing. Is this prosecution
barred in two or five years? | do not feel
atliberty tosdecide these questions, nor any
other question which might be construed
TO be a trial OF the guilt or innocence of
the ACCUSED. With his guilt or innocence
Of the offence, have nothing to do; nor
with Lat all consider whether the crime is
GREAT or sMALs. Ny rule ;sto ascertain, if
! caa, what the law is, without regard to
consequences. and decide accordingly.
would gladly have avoided decision Of this
ease, but it was inade my duty TO decide.
Having came to the conclusion that the law
Of l949 did not extend the 10th section
afthe sub-treasuFy act over Northern Cal
jfdrnia so as to make its violation a crime,
thatjf it did, that the District Court of the
United States for the Northern District of
California had no jurisdiction over the of
fence committed on the 3dlof April, 1850,
aud being fully satisfied that have as a
State, Judge, on aawrit of Habeas Corpus,
the'right to look into these questions, moth
ing remains but to discharge the accused
from the custody of the Marshal--whch is
aow done--and am the more satisfied with
this decision, as it is subject to be reviewed
by the highest tribunals in the country. E
by the l0h section of the act passed Feb.
Vuary e9. la47, amendatory tothe act secu
sing the benefit of the writ of Habeas
Corpus, ills provided, ''Ihat the proceed
inqS upon any writ of Habeas Corpus shsl
bslrecorded By the clerks respectively. and
yaay he reviewed, by writs of error and Ger
1ioFari, as in other cases now provided bS
taw.9's as Ohio Laws, 45. o. ~. l..if..,.