The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-10-19
United SAatcs Circuit Court.
Before Hon. Judge Ingersoll.
THE HENRY CLAY STEAMBOAT DISASTER.


were EN- psneed and then discharged till Thursday morn
pr when the Judge will address them the calendar of
Mr. j. Prescott Hail. late United States District tor
ney and Mr. Dunning the present Associate so ct At
torney appeared for the prosecution in the case of the
George n Belts for Mr. Collyer; Mr. d. g. Wheaton for
German and Mr.. Mcmahon as counsel for the other
Mr.. pupninp moved the trial of tn omas Coyer John
F. TallmaD, John German, Edward Hubbard, James l..
Jessup, James Elmendorf, and Charles Merritt
Mr. Belts moved, on afhdavits of Mr.. Colyer and his
counsel (hmse and Mr. Jordan) for separate trial,
the ground that some Of the parties in the case are
material witnesses for him, they could not be used
such if included in the same rial
Mr.. AcMAhon, on behalf Of bis clients also moved for
separate trials the other accused parties the ground
that the line Of defence of Taman would be entirely at
variance from the defence of the Others Mr. McMahon
also moved for osponement on the ground of his
illness, Of which he produced q medical certificate.
Another ground the iaess of material witness. Mr..
Ncsahon therefore, moved for separate trial of Mr.
Coler from the Eve parties whom he represented and
separate trial for German from the others.
Mr. Hail in opposing the motion for separate trials,
said had personal feelings in the matter in which
high regard charged 18th serious misdemeanor;
but he must endeavor to discharge his duty in faithful
TO the government who employed him. II sepa-
trials granted such difficulties would arise that
he should advise the abandonment of the prosecution He
of opinion that they not indicted and tried
collectively there would be in the prosecution
because there was allegation that the disaster was
caused by any one manthe theory is that they were
conformity guilty of misconduct and negligence Mr..
Hall read the section of the act relating to this case 1t
is quite that Mr. coyer charged being the part
owner Of the boat but he is also charged with being en-
plo ed the boat at the time The evidence, they sup
posed will to show TINT Mr. Colyer being present IS
owner was acting master and the evidence will go to
show that the Henry Clay that day engaged
in fearful coz test with the Armenia and that the act
ing master is responsible for the fearful results II the
Court separated Mr. Coyer rom the rest the jury
say that there evidence of particular act
against him. He contended therefore, that the person
responsible Mr. Coy ard If the Court decided
that Mr.. Collyer should have separate trial. he Mr.
Hail. should consult with the District Attorney WI ether
would be proper to go Oh with the trial OF Mr. Celyer
II is g matter one in which the public feel and IN
which they have right to feel, deeply. II any man
should be held Tor his responsibility that day, it
the of ths boat who encouraging the others
board he ought be tied TO the others and tried with
them for the results of the asst in which he princi
pal actor and by which, he informed by the District
Attorney eighty -four lives lost. Mr. Hall subse
suen referred to the opinion Of Betson the app
cation for separate trial for Capt Farnham in the case
Of the Reindeer.
Mr. Wheaton was then heard behalf of GERMAN, for
whom he urged separate trial
Mr. Jordan remarked that had been said to be a very
grave matter but it regards The living and not the dead
and although they might feel disposed to object great
Of time yet that consideration wodd not for
weigh against the rights of the parties accused
influence the pure aud unsued of the admins
tration Of justice The learned prosecutor he
would not to thu conviction of man for high
crime because it would take long time for the
trial. The prosecution should insist on fair
trial and the counsel for the accused show that they
could get fair trial shsr Of separate trial and,
although not indictment for murder yet it for
very high offence, for which tie punishment is very
we're BE then moved for separate trial for his Client
Mr. Colyer who is not the captain OF the steamboat but
is shpbuder of this city and happened at the time to
be part of the Henry Clay but took part in the
command Of her. and had nothing to do with the naviga
ton Of the vessel that day. and to punish him would
be sad blot the escutt heoA OF justice He submitted
that person not employed board the boat not
anenabe under the act of Congress- Mr. Coyer did not
confessedy NJ Taman Mr. Jordan referred TO the case
of Captain Moony recently tried in this Court for
der the high seas, in whose case separate trial was
The Judge remarked that noue proseqa had been en-
tered in the of of the parties charged in that in
dctment before the trial of Capt Moony commenced
Mr. Jordan referred to the of Douglas and Benson
Ba and another Crutzen and Wilhelm, in which sepa
rate trials had been granted.
The Judge said that it appeared to him great many
topics had iscussed which not necessary to be
considered in disposng Of the motion before him, though
they might be worthy of consideration in addressing the
Jury The act of Congress provided that every captain,
pilot, engineer, other officer employed steamboats,,
propelled whole in part by steam, by whose micon
duct negligence inatention TO his their respective
duties the life of person on board shall be destroyed
shall be deemed guilty Of granddaughter. The indictment
under consideration found on That act OF Congress-
and the indictment charges the named in it Of
this misconduct and neglgence-it charges them with
joint misdemeanor and negligence Tor which they are all
tablet and it is not necessary for the Court to take into
consideration the questions raised before Judge Belts
though he Judge lngerso would undoubtedly have
CURED that opinion after due consideration 1t is
evident that the object to have Mr. Coyer tried first
Mr. Jordan dissented; he did not make any such mo-
ton did he wish it.
The Judge-We the object to have tried before
the other and whyS The reason is and there can be
trial there cannot be fair trial; and then the ques
ton up Has anything TRANSFERRED to show that
these parties have fair trial had jointly? and
if there shown that they cannot have fair
trial. then it is the duty of the Court not to order trial
pair trs ;ontly then it Is the duty q the Court
though 1t is said to be their order separate
trials What the reasons urged to induce the Court
believe they cannot ha fair trial jointly? The first
is that the defence is antagonisc TO each other that
there cannot be fair trial The second is that they
cannot have the evidence of their codeendans in their
behalf Is there any ground for this? II there is
ground fer it. then why should separate trial be grant
in this case and that Mr. Coliyer or the Engineer
is tried first could he have the benefit of the evidence of
the oher This question had been up before the Supreme
Court in the reported in johnson, in in Mas
sachusettshe of Pckering-as to the party being
entitled the evidence of their and it
refused and it had in the Supreme courts of the
United States where individuals tried in the Circuit
Court, in Virginia, for murder the high seas and
where each had been ordered to separate the
first tried offered the testimony of the other The
question went up to the Supreme Court whether of
the accused could be examined for the other, and the
Supreme Court decided that in the United States courts
he could not, though in the State Of Virginia law had
been passed prior to the time of that trial in the Circuit
that where separate trial was had the first person tried
might have the benefit of the other The Supreme Court
decided that in the United States courts the first
tried could not have the benefit OF the testimony Of the
other who indicted with him, and therefore the
which has been urged here not well sustained for,
if the defendants tried separately, they could
more have the benefit Of their testimony separate
the other reason. Is their defence so anagonistic
that they cannot Jointly have fair triaY certainly
do not think 20. If | did | would grant It,
Il is not that any who is acting captain, mate
engineer and him only shall be liable but the statute
says person. and to the ground urged By counsel
that it necessary for him to implcate the witness in
order to excuse, do not understand it If what
sci true that the captain sick that he was
not able TO attend to the duties board and the
nand devolved the next officer if he being sick could
not attend to his DUTY he has done nothing If that is
made to appear then view the unless there is
something added this nsconduct happening during
bis absence in my judgment he i'll be freed from all
sponsibity, because he will not be implicated in that
misconduct Hi sickr would excuse him. The Court
did not that the defence OF the parties Is antago
nistic that they cannet be tried Jointly and have ar
trial. In reference TO the of Captain Molony
which has been referred to- the court very certain
nolle proi entered before the trial. because the
Doctor who had been included in the indictment,
examined witness, and that is satisfactory to my
mind that nol entered. The motion in this is
refused
Mr.. Mcmahon inquired what the Court would do with
the motion for postponement the ground Of his illness
and the illness of of the Witnesses aud with regard
the affidavit he had made of his having endeavore
nf