The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-10-25

=, ne Urand Jury having made a presentment of
Marion Cord and Charles TAYLOR for an assault
with intent to kill one Adolph Wertzberger and as
1T is highly probable that the wounded man will die
from his injuries, it is respectfully requested that
/ known. (Sirned,)
o.,oo, WIZ. II. CArHcARr,
The Court then adjourned until this morning at
CLOCK, when after the delivery of the opinion of
Judge Stump in the Ford case the trial of John
! stephens GIlas Cyplus, (negro) charged with the
murder OF Henry King (negro) will be commenced.
UNITED STATES DIsrRIcr CoURr.-Hon. William
! Fell Giles, Judge. William Meade Addison, Esq,
| u. >. District Attorney, prosecuting.
| Saturday:
The United States rs William Wilkinson. George
! STEIN mas Rudy, George Fowler, Thomas Hogg
and William McEldary, indicted for assauting with
intent to Kill Bernard Bradley on Friday October
18th, 1858, at the new Post Office buildings
Charles j.. Kraft and o. F. Hack, Esqrs. ap-
! peared for the prisoners
Inc counsel for the traversers on Friday morn
ing made motion to quash the indictment in the
! above case, for the following reasons:
} Isl. Because the United States Government has
: no jurisdiction over the territory or place upon
which the offences alleged against the traversers in
! the said indictment alleged to have been com
mtted and, therefore, this Court has no power
to try or punish crimes offences committed in
| said place.
I'd. Because the Government of the United States
has not the power and the jurisdiction over the
place where said offences are alleged to have been
/ committed but that jurisdiction remains in the
! Courts of the State of MARYLAND
Judge Giles overrued the motion in the follow
/ ing decision:
Since the adjournment of the Court yesterday have
given to the interesting question raised on this mo-
uon 10 quaS that patient consideration and examination
Wch was due as well its importance as to the very
abe argument of the learned counsel for the
re rested that argument upon the theory that by the t
subsection of section Of article the Constitution of
the United States, the General Government couId not
/ nnf rrs1 1ico
over site purchased for the erection of forts arsen-
That sec ion reads thus: ITO exercise oxcusyo 1os,
ton IN all cases whatsoever such district not ex
ceedng ten miles square may by of particular
States and the acceptance Congress become the seat
OF the Government of the United States and to ererce
te quhGy over all places purchased by the consent Of
ts Legislature Of The State IN lctich the SGme shat be- for
the erection of forts, magazines arsenas backwards and
other needfd bfidingS., ~
Vow appears clear that the greater power in
etGde the less that, as under this section of the Con
snon Congress possessed the power of exclusive Leg
siaon over all places purchased with consent of the
legislature oi State where they situated they had
the power to exercise jurisdiction or any
lesser jurisdiction For when you consider the reason
%hh ie TO the grant OF this power in the Constitution
Ee various exgencies and wants of the public service
which would require its exercise cannot be for a mo-
supposed tat the wise men who framed that nstru-
ent ever intended to debar the General Government from
he purchase Of property, (Which they well would
from 'me 10 time required for the of the Govern
ment they estabShng) without they could obtain
Its cesson with exclusive jurisdiction. The Constitution
gave no power to condemn The land that gJb be re0re
II mus De purchased by the consent Of the LegisIqt,e Of he
STATE. sovereign State could not be coerced into
ceSSlor OF jurisdiction any part her territory
AND when she granted it. she could attach to the grant
and cession what conditions she pleased The General
Government might accept reject the purchase and ce
SION OF jurisdiction on the terms proposed by the State
nu size accepted she took tie jurisdiction with the con
ditons which the State annexed to the cession Now If
the view of the raverser Counsel be correct that the
General Government could take no jurisdiction eycept an
one then the cesson of jurisdiction in this
would be vOd for where in private grqHf IN imposic
condition Is annexed, the grant stand freed of the
condition, this would not apprchend be the rule in
nh
atlve cesson Of jurisdiction by sovereign State over
any part Of her territory Maryland has made many
cssonS OF parts of her territory the General Govern
ment for light houses, forts &c In all those Grants
except that for the Naval Academy Annapolis the ces
sion OF jurisdiction is absolute, without any rescr-
walton whatever. In that for the Naval Academy
there is reservation by the State eoconcurent jurisdiction
so iar as permit the service of civil criminal pro
Cs issue" ~ any Court OF the state for anything done
out OF the limits of the land ceGed In two cases ONLY so
Tar as have seen, has Maryland the reservation lin
20 le service OF rocess,l of concurrent jurs
dcton by the State to punish crimes committed on the
site ceded to the General Government The Legislature
W SO ny te act OF 1895 ch 40 in giving their
the of ground for the enlargement the Custom
House in this city and in the present by act of
1000 en- Ifoand the reservations in each alike
ny section ID of last act it is enacted THAT jurisdiction
over the same parcels of ground same shall have
Dee lawfully conveyed to the United States government
be and it is hereby ceded to the United States government
reSerring, nevertheless, to the state of Nqryand concur
rent Jurisdiction said lot or marcel Of round s
far mag be necessary authorize the service thereon of
process issued by any Court officer said State and
the punishment by said STATE NJ crime beeoo ji5
Now if the reservation had been preserving to the State
OF Maryland the punishment Of all committed on
would be an end Of this prosecution nae" ''e' 'efe
But the Legislature of Maryland did not so provide
Ihey merely reserved to the Courts of the State
General Governmenti az 70 tbai voo[ei' WIN tne
committed the general jurisdiction by the perios 1cors
ernment would have possesspd the solo e. F nt ~
punishment Of crimes And perceive no evils likely
and State avarnr,ens I, n~,s'i crimes grant tina. by
si.s .5i-;,r4 -" "a -Nclusiye cognizance of all
crimes haer the laws OF the United States coufde
20 20 | ana Circuit Courts erce 1ghere the lars of
We CH's" SHteS Sh'" ohefcaSe direct But almost from
e origin OF our government Congress has from time to
a III pIoE,gihE lor me punishment OF crimes reserved
70 the several States jurisdiction to punish said crimes
oot m "GIe luSiaoie Isds uhuer the state law The
5II VI -ist APIit, IoUo' ma VOL. Statutes, p 4O5
Z4th OF tebraary 1907, 2nd vol, p 423 and 10th of
april 1910 sd Yol p 20, were laws OF this character
pass" ny congress Ana the act of the 3rd of March,
loz under which this Indictment is brought in its 26th
secth ehacts Ihot nothing IA s act contained stqH be
""ptce nc courts y ne a"d'rG"1L States Of
JT'<i'ctlnt aiasr me taWs o. ne Secerm States oUer
%1hjsS 1Ii ,t Ttt,,s f"r'tT1'os s . oy u.'$ &C.,.
crime CAM bof1re tIe Sn I'm no., 70 Pltsti ior
in the case of Honston woore yG n, ,g tteS
and the concurrert Jurisdiction was snstanod m int
learned in very able opinion delivered by Judge
Washngon and in the close OF that opinion referred
70 70 dG9ly as 70 whether the sentence of one ursdic
i co O m G. tle @ % Oh te other And the de
whether Of copyction or aconitta u o' he
bar Of nrosecnton before te othe T pg IN
sustain position of the traversers' counsel in refer
ence to the 7h fthe cons
5ull2n 10 wmch have referred will be found to be
TyG.e T.d suggested Dy JuGge story IN the case OF
words For # NAV we'll he T dtg o. 1t Is IN tnese G
gress are by the terms of the Cnnst3+;o, NJ ibrtr
lands for these forts &c with the consent
of State Legislature where such consent is so qualified
that VIII not justify the exclusive legislation OF Con-
es mere Inc point dd not arise in that case for the
i ] " tetG s I We merely TO serve me civl and Grim
irarncJ Inda rhih r ind ~ Is 9t Inns uGuo' oG tha
commentaries on the Constitution to which reference has
been made. And in the case the T. S rs Davis this
same Judge maintained the validity of the act of 1926
which for the punishment Of crimes IN places
9sL ge Jf.$%tco p9t not aGGr te Soe and ereIustre
niI ~ tbt .v G Ttu I 5tss ne ,ce,Ge % maintained
territory with concurrent i1Tisdctiop And & % H
which he suggested in 1919 must have been removed he
fore 1929 by the industry and researches of an intellect
which ranged over every branch of Jurisprudence
G o. aGmray a. @ ana ana maritime law The conviction of my
der tbe ov 49, ] t Go9ia taEe u
of 1856 concurrent nrSfion 70 ns crr p te ACT
mited on the Post Oaire Iot in ti d u % oG
to Guash the indictment in this must be overrued
The Judge was interrupted in the delivery of his
GecSion oy the announcement that the Grand Jury
ma hau hhiShed an matters Tor their consideration,
Whefeupon Judge Glles' discharged the body, eX-
pressing Ie thanKS 9ltne court Tor the faithful and
prompt manner IN which they had attended to their
9%uties % rcnarklng that there had never been jury
during his term OF Office, which had been more
a. Co anu P'"NP' Vi given inoFc Satisfaction 10
Tbo r, @o,u4 ,l,,, ,,,,..,., -, -, -,
Inc court lhen proceeded with the trial: In
empanGlIIng jury the counsel for the. defence
u,n,gu 'ne Tgnt Oh twenty challenges Tor each