New-York daily tribune., 1859-05-25
RIGHTS or GRAND JURIES.
CAPT. CORRlE'S CASE.

4 new phase in judicial proceedings has been pre-
sented in the Corre case, pending before the United
States Circuit Court, sitting at Charleston =. c. tho
particulars Of which We copy from The CAariestos
Courier Of the 18th instant:
The Grand Jury having ignored on Tuesday the bill
against W. G. Corrie, they werc temporarily die
Charged on the motion OF the District cAt,oney, 10
allow time Tor further examination OF his duty IN the
premises. 49,.
The jury was recalled on Wednesday to await the
decision aud after the usual iormaties OF opening,
Judge Wayne referred 10 the object of the adjourn
ment, and asked; Mr. Att'rney, have you any
"matters for the Grand jury p The reply was
"May il please the Court, have nothing Tor the
Grand Jury, but refer to the Foreman who desin's
'to make statement.
Edward Se bring. esq, Foreman OF the Grand jury,
then arose and reported that, in behalf OF the Grand
jury he had request question for the Court. He
was proce ding to explain the causes or reasons which
had Induced the request bat was stopped by the pre-
siding Judge who reminded him that the deliberations
of the Grand Jury could not be- revealed and that tho
Grand Jurors coul not receive or ac, on any niorns-
on which had reached the members in any other then
a legal form. The Judge and the Court Deeded M as-
surance or explanation 10 show that the Grand Jurors
for the district had discharged their duty and would
continue to do 81.
Mr. Sebrng then stated the application Of the Grand
Jury, as follows: I've desire aud request thas me
"bi against VIM. c. Couie,on which we reported
"no bl,' should be recomni,ted."
On this point after consultation the judgment
Of the Court was announced by Judge Wayne against
The application and opinions were given by both
Judges Judge Magrath dissenting.
Judge Wayne referred 10 the peculiar limits and uar
ture Of the United States Courts and Of their Grand
Jures asderving their powers and functions from and
under statutes exclusively, having common law ju
risdicon. lie knew authority under the statute Of
the United Sases that could justify him in granting tAs
request of the Grand Jury. The record complete
and conclusive, and the Court could not change IL t
could not be assumed concluded legally that the
Grand Jury would come TO different result, and 10
grant the application for reconsideration would be
precedent full of mischief and evil to defendants less
than To the public at large. The right OF the prose-
cutting attorney to retain the prisoner after return Of
gh0rnavS for the action of another Grand Jury was
not affected or involved
The application was refused, with renewal OF ex.
pressons Of regret at the dissent oi Judge Magrath.
The dissentiBg option Of Judge Magrath was given
in his most eloquent and impressive manner although
evidently and necessarily without preparation. He
reviewed the primary and distinctive nature Of the
Grand Jury, charged and sworn specially to make
inquiry and argued that for the discharge Ut this dafy
the fullest liberty required. He asserted tho right
and duy of Grand Jures to make presentment beyond
or without any information or prosecution, and cited
The opinion and language of ChiefJusfice Marshall,
Justice Wilson, and decided before Justice Ca
tron in the United Ststes Circuit Court IN Tennessee
in 1851. He was clearly of opinion that the appica-
ton in this case was proper, and should be granted
Judge Wayne expressed, his approval Of the con
scientious position Of the dissenting Judge, aud was
about oischargiDg the Grand Juryin fact, had pro-
nounced the discharge with the thanks Of the Conrt
when the foreman, Edyard Ssbrng, asked If the Jury
had the privilege of making presentmeDts. On IN
affirmative answer the Grand Jury retired, and amer
some deliberatOn deputed Messrs. John u. Holmes
Gnd f. j. Pelzer of their body TO return 10 the Court
and request the aid Of the DsTictAttorney IN consul
tation. The Distnct-AtorDey retired accordingly,
and soon returned and after further interval tho
Grand jury returned.
On being polled and answering usual, tbe Cerk
propOunded the prescribed question, and tire foreman
presented paper which was read by the Clerk. In
this the Grand Jury reported and presented William
e. Corrie for yiOstiOn of the act of Congress of 1891
concerning the save-trade, and the Grand jury a.
that the Court idstruct the DstrcAttornsy 10 take
mee, ures accordingly.
Tie Grand jury perempt0rly discharged AFTER
reading of this presentment and after cobsuta
ton with counsel ior the defendant, A. H. Brown and
+. ID. Richardson, csqe notice given and leave
asked for d motion. Judge Wayne replied ths, IL
his pleasure less than hs duty 10 allow the falsst
discussion and that be would hear any motion dec msd
important TO the case The motion thus announce in
advance will be for the immediate trial Of the d.
fendent the ground Of the presentment being in It's
effect an Indictment.
Judge Wayne repeated bis determination 20 hear
the argument bat referred council TO the sttonsI
Limitations prescribing and reqairing indictment, and
stated cmphaicAly that in ihIs the Grand Jury
was dissolved, and under contingency declsics
corld the case revert to the panel.
Tie issue 10 the right Of w. &. Corrie 10 trisI
here under this novel state OF facts will be argued this
day.