The independent press. (Abbeville C.H., S.C.) 1853-1860, 1859-02-04

The Echo Prisoners.

argument before the U. 8. Circuit Court by
Isaac w: Hayne Esq, on the motion to dis
charge the crew Of the Echo. delivered ut Co.
inmo'a, December 1888, reported by Doug lass
A. Levien.
We have received n pamphlet copy of the
able argument of the Attorney General in this
cause. and have read it W ith great interest.
The crew ofth Echo. charged under the net o {
Congress ofMay 10Th 1920, with piracy on the
high seas. were brought before the U. s. Cir
cult Court at Columbia. and motion made for
their discharge. the Grand Jury Of Richlnnd
having refused to find true bill against them.
Tho Attorney General of the State was retain
ed. as special counsel on behalf Of the Govern.
ment, and made his argument in support of
the prosecution.
In his argument he discusses two points-lst
The right Of the prisoners to their discharge
from the mere fact that the Grand Jury had p
nored the bill OF indictment-and I'd The con.
stitutionality ofthe law under which thew were
indicted.
Under the Habeas Act of Charles IT. on the
last dav of the second term Of the Court, they
would be entitled to an absolute discharge. but
up to that time, they could only make oil ap-
plication for bail. and addressed to the discre
ton of the Court. The fact that the Grand
Jury had failed to find a bill ae ainst
them would be circumstance in their favor
and if the fact stood alone, would probably in
duce the Court TO discharge them on their own
recognizances But in this case the prosecu.
tion had made such showing, as far to out.
weigh the finding of the Jury. whose Judgment
no more binds the Judgment Of the Court, on
motion Of this kind. than it does the verdict of
the Petit Jury. or the discretion of the prosecut.
ing attorney.
With regard TO the constitutionnlity of the
Law. the Attorney General. makes an eluLo
rate argument. The right to define and pun
lsh crime enters into the very idea Of Govern
ment, and the right to punish offences on the
high sens is necessary function Of the Gene.
erai Government. aud its authority is found III
ths grant Of those implied powers, which flow
from the powers expressly conferred upon Con.
gress to make war. conclude peuce and to reg
ulate commerce with foreign nations.
But the authority contended for, docs not
rest upon any construction of the implied pow.
ers OF Congress, but is conferred hy special
grant, in that clause fthe Constitution which
gives to Congress the power to define and pun.
ish pracies aud felonics committed OH the hiph
seas, and offences against the law of nations"
Objection is made that power to define"
gives no power to "create" and that piracy is
term having fixed meaning by the law of
nations. and designating offence existing in.
dependent ofany net Of Congress. The Attor
ney General in reply shows, that the distno.
tion between piracy under the law of nations,
and under the municipal law. is we'll establish
ed by the elementary writers and that all
nations in Furnishing offences on the high sens
have applied the term piracy. to crimes pun
'shed by their own municipal laws.
Conceding the foregoing powers to Congress.
the Attorney General. nevertheless would lie
inclined to doubt the constitutonnity of the
present law maxi ing the importation of Afri-
cans piracy, but for that res trictve clause of
the Constitution. forbidding legislation until
lsoS-Ihs restriction demonstrates, that after
1908 Congress should have the right. This
was the contemporaneous interpre,at alton, and
the restrictive clause was defended by General
Pinckney in debating the matter before the
Convention ofthe State, on the ground that it
was compromise.
The above is a concise and meaper abstract
OF this very able and conclusive argument